View Full Version : Visceral Reaction to Limbaugh's Woman-shaming.
A friend of mine just posted an article about Limbaugh's attack of a law student who asserted an argument for the value of access to birth control.
I then went and read Rush's statements (in context), and it's pretty . . . well, it makes no sense.
I'm paraphrasing, but he essentially says that this young woman (and therefore any like her) want the public to pay for her to have 'a lot of sex.' And that she shouldn't have sex that she 'can't afford.'
This seems to apply to all women. No woman should have sex that she can't afford. If she can't afford birth control, then no sex. If she can't afford to have a child, then no sex.
I'm saying "no sex" because I'm assuming -- as it is commonly argued by many -- that using the thermo-sympto-method (fertility awareness method) is considered "not great" because often the "user" fails in it's application, meaning it's not terribly effective. I agree that this can happen with any form of birth control, and is probably more likely to happen with this method than others.
And so I am confused.
If a woman wants to have sex -- whether married or not, and not have a child and the only way she can more or less guarantee that is with birth control -- then she is a slut.
If a woman doesn't have sex, I can only assume that she would then be shamed for being frigid. Particularly if she is married, can't afford birth control or children, and this is the only way that she can guarantee that she won't have children.
Let's also forget the research that indicates that it's healthy for men to have sex 4x per week (this apparently extends their lifespans) which would assume that their partners would likewise be having sex this frequently, and while there's little orno research as to whether or not this is healthy for women, i would only assume that it is. Perhaps that is a false assumption.
So, no birth control or children unless you can afford them.
No sex unless you can afford birth control or children.
No sex means that men's and women's health would decline (probably imperceptibly).
No sex for men is sad sad sad. No sex for women means they are bad bad bad (frigid).
And seriously, is this guy and his sort actively *striving* to create Children of Men? (see the movie, it's scary how close to reality it may well be).
Pollute and consume with impunity!
Support corporations, not people!
Shame women for having sex, then shame them for not having sex, and make sure that either way, they are "affording" their actions, rather than living off the public teat! Eventually those women will likely get fed up and, guess what? Go forward with lesbian relationships or celibacy.
And then what? Environmental collapse, economic collapse, and human population collapse when there is no more reproduction (both by choice, and likely by pollution affecting fertility of men and women, but that's a whole other deal).
Argue all you want for not having birth control covered by insurance companies as a matter of law or whatever.
But really, shame a woman for being -- gasp -- normal and healthy? Shame married women for not wanting to have 23 children like the Duggars and other "quiver full" families?" Shame unmarried women for doing that which is normal for men anyway? That which they want to do, and is both normal and healthy?
Honestly?
I didn't follow your arguement but will say this: Sure I agree with
... No woman should have sex that she can't afford. If she can't afford birth control, then no sex. If she can't afford to have a child, then no sex.
...in a general way. That just seems reasonable to me. Another way to say that is:
Take responsibility for the consequences of unprotected procreative sex.
As for as the rest of it, you are spending time tyring to make sense of an entertainment icon's political ramblings? hmmmm, what's up with that?
There's a lot of funny craziness going on in the birth control arena of politics. Our state legislature has put forth a bill to spoof abortion restrictions. The central idea is that every man must be wholly able to produce live sperm or he will face the penalty of the law. All vasectemies except when the life of the man is threatened will be illegal. It will not take into account how many children he has and can support. It will not take into account the burdon a pregnancy brings to his partner. all sperm is sacred and must be protected!
I laughed about it when I heard it even though I usually get steamed when our dear politicians waste time in legislative chambers. Some female legislators in Missouri are having some fun with it.
Our state legislature has put forth a bill to spoof abortion restrictions. The central idea is that every man must be wholly able to produce live sperm or he will face the penalty of the law. All vasectemies except when the life of the man is threatened will be illegal.
Hilarious. Oh, the fun we could have with that. After all, a sperm is half-a-baby.
Zoebird, I'd advise not listening to, reading, or otherwise being exposed to anything that ridiculous blowhard has to say, except to distance yourself immediately and permanently from anyone who actually listens to him. Or go back and read Al Franken's book (http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/0440508649) as a purgative.
I haven't heard Limbaugh's comments, but I did see the young lady in question's testimony. I can't recall a better public example of someone's failure to assume responsibility for themself and their actions. She was invited to represent women and if I were a woman, I'd be embarrassed.
Yes, I can't make sense of this guy's rant and the people who appear to agree with it.
I have no issue with the political perspective that birth control -- in all forms including abortion -- should not be supported through tax funding.
Where I get confused is how things seem even more confused around what this birth control issue is?
Foremost, where is birth control supported by tax-funding?
It is already funded for women who can get medicaid coverage. Medicaid of course utilizes both federal and state taxes. What is covered in which state depends upon the state.
If the government provides grants to organizations -- like planned parenthood -- that provide free birth control to women who do not qualify for medicaid coverage and do not have other methods of paying, then the tax payers pay for that via the grants.
Otherwise, I don't see how this is a coverage issue that people would be worried about. Why? Because insurance is private -- though subject to laws of all kinds even so.
This new law asserts that all insurance companies must provide FDA approved birth control drugs. Employers are to continue to provide insurance (or there will be the public option, I assume).
Does this mean that the individual is paying for what another should be "responsible for?"
As far as I understand it, insurance is designed in this way: a group of people get together and pay for a policy that has certain coverages. The company has gone out and created these price points with the pharma suppliers, doctors, and hospitals within their 'networks' that then provide those coverages.
And, I would say that it works overall.
But here are my ideas about it.
1. I would much rather pay for preventative care such as birth control for woman, rather than paying for abortions or the health care for children and pregnancies that the women did not chose (because we're either going to pay via our insurance or we are going to pay via medicaid/care/CHIP) -- although I have no problem paying for children and maternal health needs in general, but to be clear, it costs more in care for a vaginal birth ($18k is national average) and then you add to that prenatal care (average cost $8k) than it does to provide $3k of birth control.
2. I am frustrated that more people rely on allopathy as their first line of defense. A lot of people needlessly drain the system, rather than using it as a "last resort" which -- technically speaking -- insurance should be anyway. That's how it is traditionally with things such as home owner's insurance, right?
Here comes my rant!
My husband and I are "health nuts." We utilize meditation, yoga, exercise, food, herbalism (home herbalism at that -- nothing fancy), sleep, massage, and other forms of preventative care (which we pay for out of pocket) so that we are strong and healthy.
Most of our friends -- between ages 30 and 40 -- are on 3 or more prescription medications -- excluding birth control medications. Here are the most common: 1. statins; 2. acid reflux medications; 3. prescription allergy medication; 4. antibiotics on a regular basis (average colds, etc); and finally 5. some form of specialized pain medication.
Now, I want to say right away that I have no problem with people who develop health issues that are unlikely to have a basis in lifestyle choices utilizing their health insurance appropriately. A friend of mine is only 32 and has MS. Certainly, her drug regimen (which is only one injection once a month and is her only prescription) and the related diagnostic tests are worth my money (what I put into the insurance company for insurance). The same is true of a co-worker's cancer treatment, or the coverage after a car accident and necessary emergency care on through rehabilitative care.
But, I do feel that people DO NOT take care of themselves and quickly become a BURDEN on our system (and don't even get me started about the "too posh to push" elective c-sections being a burden!).
One of my friends was diagnosed with GERD. After many drugs over many years didn't work, I made a dietary suggestion and sent him the science. He decided it wouldn't hurt to try. Within several months, he had no more GERD, and even the injuries and scarring in the esophagus was healing. His doctors had him on several medications -- one to decrease acid and reflux, the other to manage pain. One caused such severe side effects for him that he had to take another drug to counter act those side effects.
I had another friend who had the same diagnosis, and I connected him with my friend who'd healed himself via diet. The second friend didn't want to "change his lifestyle" of eating junk food and soda, and would rather "take the meds." He's now lining up for some specialized surgery due to the damage in his esophagus, which is a further burden on the system.
Now, here's the way I see it.
People are asserting that a woman should be "responsible" for her sexual health by paying out-of-pocket for her birth control. Something that we know is safe and effective, something that can make it possible to have a happy, normal life, and something that isn't onerously burdensome on the system.
So, if we say that I agree with this, why isn't there also the assertion that people should TAKE RESPONSIBILiTY for their health in general?
Because right now, my friend doesn't have to be responsible for his diet causing his GERD which causes us to have to pay for his medication (via insurance) and ultimately his surgery for the damage he willingly did for himself because he. . . chose to continue to eat junk food and soda?
And I'm not saying it should be a broad policy of not medicating for GERD.
I believe that GERD actually exists, and that there are people who would benefit from the treatment for GERD -- both surgical and pharmacological. And, I have no problem supporting their health via our shared insurance policy payments and how that all works. Honestly, I don't. Just like I have no problem providing prenatal care for women who also are under our insurance policy, or emergency medical care.
BUT, I do have a problem when alternative, non medical preventative measures can be utilized and are not.
And this is about personal responsibility. . .
and also group responsibility.
I try not to be a drain on any aspect of my community. I'm working diligently to continue to "add value" to my community here -- just as i did in the US.
We also try really hard to take good care of ourselves (and our son) so that we aren't sick, so that we don't need to rely on medicine and medical care unless we have to -- because it IS expensive, and it IS a valuable resource that should be utilized efficiently, effectively, and only as necessary.
I feel that birth control coverage is a good thing -- and I'd happily pay for it via my insurance plan (even if I do not use it myself). I'd also happily pay for prenatal care and birth care, and also erectile disfunction care, and also cancer treatments and so on.
But I don't want to continue to pay for preventable things -- things that can be prevented if people TOOK RESPONSIBILITY and TOOK CARE OF THEMSELVES as opposed to just going in for the next pill, as if that's how it should be.
THOSE PEOPLE are the drain on the system -- not a woman seeking birth control. Not a person who actually needs emergency or extreme health care and needs allopathy.
So, the real question is. . .
if we are talking about taking personal responsibility why are we drawing the line here -- birth control -- but we're not willing to draw the line at the junk-food junky who has become a drain on the system?
It's like just one class of person is supposed to 'take responsibility' -- but no one else has to.
And no one is speaking to the fact that the obesity epidemic (which has multiple causes, and therefore would have multiple solutions including allopathic ones in *some* instances) is largely about people NOT taking responsibility for themselves and their health. . .
and yet, here we are . . . all of us paying for that, but entirely unwilling to assist our fellow policy holders in preventing pregnancy? A mere $3k per annum expense?
but that same woman could become morbidly obese by her own choices, and we'll pay for everything from her type 2 diabetes treatments, her kidney treatments, her gastric bypass, her failure from her bypass recovery surgery, and so on and so forth until she dies in renal failure at the hospital? (it's tragic, yes, and the true story of a friend of mine). Her bills ultimately stacked up around $125k AFTER insurance that sent her husband into bankruptcy after her death, and he lost his child to her family because they were able to somehow demonstrate that he wasn't a good father (because he "let her kill herself with food!?) -- but that's beside the point.
Point being, a person can kill themselves and we can pay for it to the tune of millions, but we are not willing to provide birth control?
Zoebird, I'm sorry but I have trouble following long rant's so I can't address every point that may have been made, but I did catch the "tax payer" providing birth control point which doesn't really come into play on this topic.
The young woman in question attends Georgetown Law, which is a Jesuit school, and her complaint is that the university is contesting the mandate that religious institutions must provide insurance which covers free contraceptives. No matter how many people try to spin the issue in a myraid of ways, it is a matter or religious liberty, not women's health or denying women the opportunity to use contraceptives.
I wasn't going to weigh in here, because I am really outclassed in the public policy arguments, but I agree with both alan and zoebird:
alan because I agree with the personal responsibility argument.
zoebird because I agree that there are a lot of ways that we, as a society wind up paying for bad lifestyle choices. But who is going to judge whether or not a medical condition was self-imposed? Then you could say cancer is brought about because of internal unresolved feelings (which some people say). Who is going to be the arbiter of blame for health issues?
BUT even if you have a medical condition you have to pay a copay, and to my knowledge the government has pretty much stayed out of formulary decisions made by insurance companies and PBMs. I personally don't get why some people feel women are entitled to free b.c.--not even a copay or coinsurance involved. Fluke talked about how the cost of b.c. annually was $3,700--the amount she would make working over the summer. I'm sorry, but your point is...?
I am very much for women's rights--truly I am. But I guess I'm getting more and more conservative in my old age, because honestly, I don't get why free b.c. should be an entitlement--especially if it's mandated by the government.
Rush Limbaugh is an over-age shock jock and professional blowhard. The more repulsive his anti-woman diatribes, the more his fan base hoots and fist pumps. Best to ignore him. In fact, I'm in favor of bringing back shunning in general.
I would never expect anyone else to pay for my birth control, but it would seem prudent for health insurance plans to provide contraceptive coverage if only in their own best interests.
ApatheticNoMore
3-2-12, 6:42pm
And what if people are sick and tired of paying for other people's decisions to have kids? What is it with health insurance covering the cost of a hospital birth? Isn't the population of the world already big enough without us subsidizing this child bearing nonsense that some irresponsible people insist on? I'm paying for other people to have LOTS OF KIDS!
Ok, none of that I just said was intended to be taken entirely literally. You can't um actually run a society that way. But it makes more sense than Limbaugh you have to admit.
If a woman wants to have sex -- whether married or not, and not have a child and the only way she can more or less guarantee that is with birth control -- then she is a slut.
according to that nutcases ideology.
If a woman doesn't have sex, I can only assume that she would then be shamed for being frigid. Particularly if she is married, can't afford birth control or children, and this is the only way that she can guarantee that she won't have children.
Yes that is widely accepted socially also, which it shouldn't be either, because a person should be free not to have sex if that's what they want as well (although marriage isn't always the best choice in such cases unless hubby also doesn't want sex).
Shame women for having sex, then shame them for not having sex, and make sure that either way, they are "affording" their actions, rather than living off the public teat! Eventually those women will likely get fed up and, guess what? Go forward with lesbian relationships or celibacy.
I think a certain amount of woman do choose lebianism because they are sick of men. Ok you do have to be attracted toward going either way to begin with. And in lots and lots of cases these women were sexually abused in childhood (that is usually the root of their men issues - and then sometimes they get involved with abusive men and then they turn toward women).
And then what? Environmental collapse, economic collapse, and human population collapse when there is no more reproduction (both by choice, and likely by pollution affecting fertility of men and women, but that's a whole other deal).
The other species on the planet do breath a great sigh of relief though ...
Argue all you want for not having birth control covered by insurance companies as a matter of law or whatever.
But really, shame a woman for being -- gasp -- normal and healthy? Shame married women for not wanting to have 23 children like the Duggars and other "quiver full" families?" Shame unmarried women for doing that which is normal for men anyway? That which they want to do, and is both normal and healthy?
Honestly?
Agreed. And I think you probably shouldn't listen to that idiot :). Nutcases like that do a whole bunch of damage to the culture, and unfortunately we have to live in it.
There's a lot of funny craziness going on in the birth control arena of politics. Our state legislature has put forth a bill to spoof abortion restrictions. The central idea is that every man must be wholly able to produce live sperm or he will face the penalty of the law. All vasectemies except when the life of the man is threatened will be illegal. It will not take into account how many children he has and can support. It will not take into account the burdon a pregnancy brings to his partner. all sperm is sacred and must be protected!
I laughed about it when I heard it even though I usually get steamed when our dear politicians waste time in legislative chambers. Some female legislators in Missouri are having some fun with it.
Actually that's a good question (at least I don't know the answer to it and I haven't heard it brought up). As far as I know Catholic faith frowns on vasectomies as well, but I haven't heard of any instance where they wanted to not cover it under moral, religious grounds.
What's the math on this?
Isn't birth control much cheaper than medical costs of having a child/raising a child?
Edit to add:
I thought everyone bi*ched about people having children they couldn't afford, why on earth would providing birth control for said folks be an issue?
Doesn't that help in some way to alleviate the taxpayer burden ???
And if I want birth control as part of my healthcare plan, isn't my reproductive medication a matter of 'health'?
I think my family pays something like 6k for our contribution to our health insurance, then DH company pays more on top of that.... my nerves can't take anymore kids and you've got to release those endorphins some how- I am married (and even if I wasn't, I'm a grown woman).... I am going to be having me some recreational rolls in the hay dammit!
I can kind of see the Catholic church part of this -- but they worked around that, right?
Wasn't a decent compromise met that didn't infringe on their religious beliefs?
I am not Catholic, but did go to Catholic school... it takes a LOOOOOOOONNNNNNNG time for them to work through things ---
I mean in my very simpleton view Vatican 2 in the 1960s finally addresses what got Martin Luther and company upset 500 yrs ago.
They are thorough and don't just change on a dime!
I'm flabbergasted that we even have to talk about this as a country - I thought this was DONE, NEXT.
And Rush, really?
DH was telling me about it last night - very fitting.
The whole business sickens me.
ApatheticNoMore
3-2-12, 7:32pm
If you are buying opiate based pain pills from a dealer there is a very good chance that that was originally paid for through insurance or the government. But Rush Limbaugh wants us to keep paying for him to have a lot of drugs!!!!
I am very much for women's rights--truly I am. But I guess I'm getting more and more conservative in my old age, because honestly, I don't get why free b.c. should be an entitlement--especially if it's mandated by the government.
Of course.
Aren't they an embarressment considering those who have have TRULY made sacrifices for women's rights? So now all the "activists" do is stand with their hand out. Gimmee gimmme more free stuff.
To paraphrase another well known woman activist: Our auto insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. Why should our health insurence pay for routine stuff?
In my perfect world, health care would be fee-for-service and catastrophic care would be universal, with everyone in the pool--non-profit and affordable. I would like to see the hands-out gimmee gimmee middlemen the hell out of the mix.
Why are we beating the hell out of the middle class for actually expecting some services from their top-dollar gold-plated hundreds of dollars a month policies, while the insurance company hotshots are literally making billions off them? It's another case of money-changers screwing us all over, and I say we'd all be better off without them. /rant
ApatheticNoMore
3-2-12, 8:20pm
It wouldn't be a problem paying for most health care fee for service really, but I think the reasoning for why insurance pays for say yearly doctors visits is this is supposed to actually be cheaper than not covering them and just covering emergencies. Why this is not considered the case for birth control I can't even imagine as giving birth isn't cheap (although .... maybe insurance companies hope to have you paying to put someone else on the policy (adding dependents is shockingly expensive, glad I have none), that's all I can think of).
flowerseverywhere
3-2-12, 8:31pm
every woman that uses birth control has a partner. What if they split it 50-50? If your sex partner doesn't think it is his responsibility to do whatever he can to pony up half the cost of birth control then you had better show him the door. If he can't afford oral contraceptives then condoms are sold at wally world and properly used with spermacides, (you could even combine them with the rhythm method) and that would take care of most unwanted pregnancies. Every woman needs to talk to their doctor about what is best for them and do their own research. Take charge of you body!
I don't listen to Rush but thought his comments were despicable. But as an insurance payer I would much rather pay for birth control for a woman than for an abortion or a child they don't want. There are enough unwanted children in the world. I know there are probably posters here who either had an abortion, or perhaps their partners or teenage daughters, so I would never for one minute assume I ever could pass judgement on anyone who had an abortion. They live with it for the rest of their lives and I think I would much rather pay for birth control than someone's broken heart.
If you can't afford contraception/OB-GYN visits, there's still Planned Parenthood. For which I'm devoutly thankful.
In my perfect world, health care would be fee-for-service and catastrophic care would be universal, with everyone in the pool--non-profit and affordable. I would like to see the hands-out gimmee gimmee middlemen the hell out of the mix. .../rant
Jane, I could totally get behind that, depending on how much $ your definition of catastrophic care was. Too low, and I'm out. High enough and I'm on board.
Once we get all the layers of profit-taking out of it, I think we could make it work. I'll get my staff right on it. Oh, wait a minute...
What's the math on this?
Isn't birth control much cheaper than medical costs of having a child/raising a child?
False dichotomy. There are not 2 choices: someone pays for my birth control OR I get pregnant.
The more I think about this, the madder I get about it. Could it BE more insulting, paternalistic toward, and manipulative of women to intimate that something so basic as birth control is something they are incapable of taking care of themselves? Sweet mother Jesus where ARE the grownup women in the world? Have they all turned into Sex and the City whiney baby Women?
This is not to say that very low income women need financial support for birth control. That's not who we are talking about here.
I don't see any reason why insurance shouldn't cover birth control, just as it covers dental work, eyeglasses, wart removal, and any other prescription or office procedure. People are paying premiums for coverage of everyday conditions, after all. And birth control is cheap and effective. Or maybe we should all get to vote on what gets covered. (Rubbing hands together in anticipation...)
Alan,
Thanks for that particular context.
Except that it really isn't. Which we discussed in another thread about this issue.
Of course.
Aren't they an embarressment considering those who have have TRULY made sacrifices for women's rights? So now all the "activists" do is stand with their hand out. Gimmee gimmme more free stuff.
This actually isn't accurate. The issue is that the insurance won't provide *at all* which means paying entirely out of pocket, assuming that you could afford it.
But we pay for the insurance in two ways: 1. as the contribution out of our paycheck; and 2. the company match (which is the benefit -- and if you don't do 1, you don't get 2, so you might as well chalk it as a loss of income).
Therefore, it technically *would be* our "entitlement." YOu see, it's not the "company" or the working organization that is "providing the heath care" -- it is the insurance company. And while the company matches, it's really the individual in the group policy contracted by the company who is paying for the health care -- ultimately (and in the majority share from what I could tell from DH's work paperwork that came to us about it).
The option is to either A. forgo the insurance from this company and get other insurance (much more expensive) or B. go with the insurance that the company has chosen even if you don't like it.
If you don't like it but still choose it because it is most affordable for you, then you have some options -- contacting the insurer to see if they can amend the policy to your requirements, asking the company to change or upgrade policies, just to name a few.
And of course, you still have the option of going to non=profit organizations that hand out birth control if you can't afford it, or become effective with FAM or both.
To paraphrase another well known woman activist: Our auto insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. Why should our health insurence pay for routine stuff?
Our health insurance is designed to do so -- it is different than auto insurance.
Our health insurance covered: routine physicals, routine gynecological exams, routine eye and hearing exams, and the routine care for DS once he was born. It also would have covered our prenatal and birth care, had I chosen it.
By that quote, none of these things would have been covered (or should not be).
And, it's arguably true. We could simply have coverage for catastrophic circumstances, and then the rest we pay out of pocket -- drugs included unless within the catastrophic origin.
How often would people get physicals if they cost them $125 plus $350 in blood panels? How often would women get pap smears if it's $85 for the appointment plus another $100 for the cost of the test itself?
It's an interesting question.
Also, the way my friend's case in canada was managed -- GERD and esophageal issues -- was that they simply waited it out. They tried these preventative measures first, and when those didn't work,t hey went through increasing levels of allopathic medicine until she got the surgery that she needed.
It's actually pretty simple to give something a preventative attempt first, rather than jumping straight to the (expensive) allopathic.
Gee, I thought these women were PAYING for their insurance. Once again we have the usual suspects shilling for the insurance companies. Poor insurance companies...how dare we expect them to, you know, cover what we PAY for.
It's not a religious issue, or freedom of religion. No one is forcing all those good little catholic women to take birth control, although 97% of them do. Actually, the Obama administration is just trying to uphold the constitution and the laws of this country. An employer cannot pick and choose which laws they will follow, and which they can discard. It's citizenship 101. The hard core stuff. The law is the law whether you personally agree with it or not. And, actually, most Americans agree with it, including a majority of catholics.
Rush Limbaugh is not just an entertainer, which is the excuse the right always gives when he says something despicable. he is their leader, their spokesperson, and their god. Find one who will speak against him! You won't because they all quiver at his WRATH. The Wrath of Limbaugh! He has them all by their cowardly short hairs and he knows it.
That piece of human garbage isn't worth the crack whore who sold him his drugs.
I don't see any reason why insurance shouldn't cover birth control, just as it covers dental work, eyeglasses, wart removal, and any other prescription or office procedure. People are paying premiums for coverage of everyday conditions, after all. And birth control is cheap and effective. Or maybe we should all get to vote on what gets covered. (Rubbing hands together in anticipation...)
My vote: If birth control for women is off the table, then so is Viagra, vasectomies, erectile dysfunction, prostate cancer treatment, etc. etc. If women's sexual health isn't covered, then men's should not be either. /end sarcasm/
And I agree with Peggy that saying Limbaugh "is just an entertainer" has been his excuse for decades whenever he's caught doing this. The question is, will he continue to be invited as a key speaker at PIPAC and other conservative functions? Will he continue with his radio show (although he lost 2 advertisers as of today)? Attacks on the young women's basketball team cost that other shock jock (name escapes me) his job - will Rush lose his?
Rush Limbaugh is not just an entertainer, which is the excuse the right always gives when he says something despicable. he is their leader, their spokesperson, and their god. Find one who will speak against him!
Ahh...me? Peggy, I won't argue that Rush and others like him have a fair amount of influence, but in the end they are nothing more than media personalities. Unlike our elected officials they only have to answer to their sponsors. Think of the greatest media conquests you know. M*A*S*H is a particular favorite of mine and one of the most successful shows of all time. That show ruled the media world for many years because it gave people what they wanted to see. Eventually the audience changed or the writers ran out of ideas or for whatever other reason it came to an end. The same thing will happen to Rush. He's not a deity and not immortal. He's just a media personality who figured out what quite a few people want to hear at a particular moment in time. If any of our illustrious politicians ever figure out how to identify and fill a niche like Rush did the world will be their oyster.
ApatheticNoMore
3-2-12, 11:07pm
I suppose having insurance drop all prescription coverage except for a few massively expensive life and death prescriptions might work. The cost of insurance might go down enough then to ... buy plenty of birth control of course.
loosechickens
3-3-12, 12:01am
I'm surprised to see us kind of getting off into the weeds on this.......The young woman made comments before a committee that birth control was not covered under their student insurance plan because the Catholic Church was against contraception, and gave examples of real life medical conditions such as a friend who had a condition of her ovaries that required birth control pills, which she could not afford, so ended up losing an ovary, and perhaps would not be able to have children because of that. She did NOT talk about having "lots of sex", only that the coverage that would be provided under the health reform would be coverage badly needed by many.
And, NO taxpayer dollars are or were involved. Student insurance is a group insurance policy, but premiums paid for by students and/or their families, or that's how it was done when our kids were in college, and when my husband, who is a graduate of Georgetown had a student policy.
And, the compromise achieved by President Obama whereby the insurance companies themselves would provide the coverage free of charge, so that religious organizations that did not believe in contraception who DO pay for their employees health insurance, did not have to pay for it (something the insurance companies were HAPPY to agree to do, because it will actually save them LOTS of money, as birth control is way cheaper than paying for pregnancies, childbirth, etc.)
And in return for this young woman illustrating some reasons why the new provisions providing very needed health care for women in terms of their reproductive needs, she had to be subjected to such ugliness and misogyny as to be ridiculed for presumed promiscuity, accused of being a slut and a prostitute, and invited to "pay" for her birth control by putting up pornographic videos of sexual encounters on the internet by Rush Limbaugh??????????????
And not every Republican or conservative in the land who is a woman, or loves a woman, or who has mothers, daughters and sisters, didn't come all over him in righteous wrath?????????
It seems almost unbelieveable in this day and age, in a world that provides Viagra and similar medications to men on most insurance policies, that we should even be having a discussion about availability of contraceptives to women as part of their necessary health care needs. That we should even be TALKING about the "evils" of contraception, that will "lead to improper sexual behavior" according to one of the two top Republican Presidential candidates, and that something that insurance companies themselves have indicated a willingness to pay for themselves, should cause a problem.
Especially when such provisions requiring health insurance policies to provide such coverage have been a part of law in 28 states for a number of years, 8 of whom do not even exempt churches themselves, let along hospitals and/or universities operated by them, with nary a peep from the religious organizations until this election year, when it was jumped upon by the rightwing as part of their hysteria against "Obamacare", and the health care reform act.
We are talking about the way that a young woman was viciously slimed, insulted, ridiculed and accused of being a slut and a prostitute, because she dared to speak out about the reasons that coverage to women in their health insurance policies was important. Shameful. Shameful.
Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock, but he's a shock jock with immense support by conservatives and Republicans, most of whom were afraid to cross him, because he is very powerful and has millions of listeners. I'm assuming that those millions of listeners have no objection to THEIR sisters, daughters and wives being spoken of by him in this way?
I am sickened by this man. And I would be ashamed of any man I knew who would not stand up for women against this ugly misogyny.
Remember, tomorrow is the Washington State Republican Caucus, and it is an excellent opportunity for those of you who live in this state to have a few words on the topic.
I'm sort of looking forward to it.
In all honesty, one cure to erectile dysfunction is to stop circumcising. Circumcision has a close relationship to ED and many other sexual issues in men. (source (http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/8/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction.html))
Of course, it's not the only issue -- as age, obesity, diabetes, and several other diseases may also cause ED.
And, I do think ED should be treated, regardless of cause.
It's just sad that circumcision was so popular, and in some ways, still is. Granted, only 31% of families circumcised their sons last year -- so at least in the future there will be less ED for this situation.
I also find it ironic that vasectomy may be covered by tubal ligation may not. Always an irony.
and, loosechickens, I agree.
--
In other news, I've been terribly frustrated by insurance in the past in a lot of ways.
Birth choice is one example. You see, in the US -- according to insurance companies -- it's too risky to birth at home with a midwife, so they're not going to pay for it. They'll pay for a midwife at a hospital, but not a midwife at home. There's lots of evidence that home birth is just as safe and effective -- and heck, it's the standard here and in many other nations where pregnancy and birth are covered by national health insurance programs.
Why is this? Because home birth care is less expensive! A home birth costs $3k. A hospital birth (vaginal, no complications, no medications) is $18k. A c-section usually runs $40k (this is an elective c-section -- such as a second c-section -- where nothing else was utilized other than the basic c-section procedures, as compare to a vaginal birth that cascades into a c-section, which will cost more than $40k).
So, in those programs where it needs to be efficient, the system is going to allow 'birth choice' and support home birth because it is. . . cheaper.
Why insurance companies in the US won't allow it is beyond me. It's much less expensive.
Instead, most home birthing families pay out of pocket. I often recommend to women in the US to save up for their home births, since they are not covered. The average cost is between $3k to 4.5k depending upon the midwife, locality, insurance that she requires, etc. And of course, that assumes you can find one because the medical boards and associations are trying to run them out of business and make home birth illegal.
I had an unassisted pregnancy and birth -- because of philosophy not frugality -- and I was happy with my choice. But i found it frustrating that we paid about $36,000 in our portions of insurance over the years, and we utilized $1250 in physicals/gyn exams, etc; $6000 in dental care (cleanings and check ups); $160 in our immigration x-rays; and $3000 in DH's emergency and specialist appointments in the year before we left (turned out to be anxiety, which I'd told him it was, but hey, he had to chase it down). When DH had his emergency care, we paid our full deductible (which I think was $5k at the time? they paid the remainder).
So, what does that come to, we paid them $36,000 and then we used $10,410. So, the insurance company scored $25,590 from us to spend on birth control, erectile dysfunction, or whatever.
And we paid out of pocket (and they were supposed to reimburse us) for $1200 of doctor's visits for DS (out of network) plus our physicals that year (out of network) which was another $125. And of course, we paid $1680 per year for DH's chiropractic care (which came after his anxiety/panic attack), and then also an additional $2,400 in other treatments to facilitate his stress management (all alternative practices, and one included talk therapy with someone 'out of network'). So that was two years worth. So that's another $4,080 in health care expenses.
I'm perfectly willing to take responsibility for these things. But honestly, if I'm paying for a policy, shouldn't I get some say on how that money is spent -- which sorts of treatments (within reason) should be allowable? Which doctors?
The insurance company never did reimburse us for those doctor's visits for the baby, for example. It's a real mess.
Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock, but he's a shock jock with immense support by conservatives and Republicans, most of whom were afraid to cross him, because he is very powerful and has millions of listeners. I'm assuming that those millions of listeners have no objection to THEIR sisters, daughters and wives being spoken of by him in this way?
I am sickened by this man. And I would be ashamed of any man I knew who would not stand up for women against this ugly misogyny.
I don't listen to his show LC, so apparently I missed the controversy. Does anyone have a link to this part of Limbaugh's show?
loosechickens
3-3-12, 12:58am
I'm sure you can go to Rush Limbaugh's own website and get a complete transcript of every word he said. Or see excerpts from every national news organization, including Fox News (although I caution you, if you read about it on Fox News, be prepared for some similar ugliness in the comments below the articles....I had no idea there were so many hateful misogynists out there in the wild. It's almost scary).
It was beyond ugly. Beyond even Rush Limbaugh ugly. Truly. It's bad enough to READ it, but I've heard a few audio segments and the mocking and extremely ugly tone is far worse than even the words convey, and the words are awful enough.
Just hit any major news site, or Google, and you can see it in all its disgustingness.
I don't listen to his show LC, so apparently I missed the controversy. Does anyone have a link to this part of Limbaugh's show?
“What does it say about the college coed ... who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex?” Limbaugh said. “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."
"If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it,” he said. “We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
Santorum's reaction:
“He’s being absurd,” Santorum said. “But that’s, you know, an entertainer can be absurd.”
Really, incredibly nauseating. The whole thing, his popularity, and the people (here and other places) who are still coming to his defense. Incredible.
In some ways, it is a shame the age of dueling has passed us by.
Then perhaps Rush would run afoul of someone like Julie d'Aubigny while he was bloviating.
:-)
In some ways, it is a shame the age of dueling has passed us by.
Then perhaps Rush would run afoul of someone like Julie d'Aubigny while he was bloviating.
:-)
"Badass of the Week" Julie d'Aubigny. Awesome thought.
On that, I can go to sleep, with visions of a neatly skewered Rush dancing in my head.
Dh notes that during the viking age, this would be handled rather swiftly by the menfolk, but it would be considered.
How does it dishonor this woman and the family? And how swift and what sort justice should be served? Wait too long, you look weak. Do it too fast, and you look hot-headed. Timing is everything.
What I got from watching the video is that Rush watches porno, which doesn't surprize me a bit. "We want you to post the videos on line so we can all watch"
I suppose it would make your head explode if I told you that my friend, a smart career woman, put up on her Facebook page that Rush was too funny about the birth control testimony thing, and right to boot! Chicks on the Right are thumbs down on the Fluke chick, too.
I thought I would watch the entire thing from beginning to end, starting with the Fluke chick, but she was so boring in relating her tales of woe (she started out with a story of someone who needed birth control pills to treat a health need, not to prevent pregnancy) and then droned on into another story...well. I just didn't have the patience to follow it.
So I will probably not look at all source material and give my opinion.
What I got from watching the video is that Rush watches porno, which doesn't surprize me a bit. "We want you to post the videos on line so we can all watch"
But he does pay for his own drugs - even if it's not always legally.
Some people seem to be missing the point. Does it matter whether you're "down on the Fluke chick" or not? This is America: You can disagree with her viewpoints, you can vote your beliefs, you can call your congressman, you can state clearly that you still don't think birth control should be funded by insurance, but is it alright that this woman is personally, savagely, publicly attacked like this? Apparently, for some people, it is. Again, this is America. We harbor lots of people who have little interpersonal compassion.
If this was your daughter, your wife, your sister, who was just another public citizen voicing her side of an issue, would you approve of this nasty, sexist blowhard doing this to her in public? Particularly, the cowardice among men on the right, who are so stuck in their belief system that they won't even defend another human being against this kind of attack, is staggering. It's too important for them to be Right. Wouldn't do to act with decency if it might be misinterpreted as being soft on the left.
Personally, I don't have much use for women who'd condone this kind of treatment of another human being, whether they agree with the girl or not, whether they're a "smart career woman" or not. As for women who'd be fans of Rush Limbaugh, well, that wouldn't blow my mind. It just makes me think "What a waste." Listening to someone who hates your own gender, who would do the same to you in a heartbeat if you disagreed on any issue? I'd say, knock yourselves out, "ladies." It's a little like my reaction when I read about gay republicans: don't they know their own party hates them and wishes them only ill? Maybe it doesn't matter to them, but I don't personally get it.
I suppose it would make your head explode if I told you that my friend, a smart career woman, put up on her Facebook page that Rush was too funny about the birth control testimony thing, and right to boot! Chicks on the Right are thumbs down on the Fluke chick, too.
It doesn't make my head explode, but it does make me assume that she was one of the kids laughing when the jock bully beat up the nerd in the high school lunchroom.
One could extend Rush's statement - under the argument he laid out wouldn't any women expecting their prenatal and delivery care to be covered, STD testing, childcare tax credits, heathcare coverage for any children they have, public schools, etc., etc. basically the same?
A lot of people (it's been expressed here), and I would assume employers think having too many kids is immoral - should they be able to modify the insurance they provide to employees to limit coverage to x number of kids?
That's one of the things I love about discussion forums, so much projection. :moon:
The young woman in question attends Georgetown Law, which is a Jesuit school, and her complaint is that the university is contesting the mandate that religious institutions must provide insurance which covers free contraceptives. No matter how many people try to spin the issue in a myraid of ways, it is a matter or religious liberty, not women's health or denying women the opportunity to use contraceptives.
Projection? Here are your own words, as an example. Careful to argue the point that you don't agree with Fluke, but not a word on whether Limbaugh was in any way wrong to viciously attack her. That would be soft, and wouldn't fit your political views. And that's precisely what I'm referring to. Few people on the right have had the b@lls to stand up and say, "Hey, this guy crossed the line. We don't agree with Fluke, but this isn't what we're about in this country." Present company included.
For the record, I don't fully agree with her either, and her helpless tone rubs me entirely the wrong way. But that's no excuse for what's happened.
Projection? Here are your own words, as an example.
You left out the part where I said I hadn't heard Limbaugh's remarks. You wouldn't want me to automatically take a stand against something I had no personal knowledge of and no feel for the context in which words were uttered, would you?
Some people seem to be missing the point...
Oh, you mean me. I think there are several points in this discussion, not just one, but if you mean the primary point that started the discussion which was RUSH LIMBAUGH DISSED FLUKE CHICK AND HE IS AN EVIL D*CKHEAD FOR THAT then I haven't "missed" it but I don't necessarily agree with it.
I sometimes find Rush funny (well, a little goes a long way) but haven't listened to his opinion piece on the Fluke chick. His schtick is commonly to make fun of people. Why is she special and off limits? In the broader point, if Fluke and all women are out of bounds for Rush because they are women, that is paternalism masquerading as protection.
Oh, and one thing I DO know is gay Republicans because in my neighborhood of about a gazillion gay men there are a few Republicans.Your statement that the "party hates them" is a silly characterization, but they are smart enough not to fall for that overwrought blather. Oddly enough, the gay Republicans I know really ARE particularly smart, it seems to me.
And I guess if you are in lockstep agreement with all tenants of your party, good for you. The rest of us have to choose among options that best represent our point of view, there is no one combination that best fits.
flowerseverywhere
3-3-12, 12:53pm
You left out the part where I said I hadn't heard Limbaugh's remarks. You wouldn't want me to automatically take a stand against something I had no personal knowledge of and no feel for the context in which words were uttered, would you?
then why are you commenting on a thread about Limbaugh's remarks if you haven't even heard them?
But he does pay for his own drugs - even if it's not always legally.
Now THAT is an important (and funny!) point.
then why are you commenting on a thread about Limbaugh's remarks if you haven't even heard them?
Because I had heard the commentary from the young lady he seems to have been talking about, and besides, are there rules for who can comment on specific subjects?
Why so confrontational?
then why are you commenting on a thread about Limbaugh's remarks if you haven't even heard them?
I am commenting but haven't listened to Rushbo's commentary because I think there is plenty to comment about without that.:)
pug thinks that a line has been crossed. If pug listened regularly, would that make a difference? pug, do you think that Rush is especially vicious toward Ms. Fluke and this diatribe exceeds even Rush standards? If you don't regularly listen to Rush, how would you know? Rush makes plenty of fun of white middle aged men who are in the wrong in his eyes as well. But I do understand what is the broader point which is: Rush Limbaugh's mean spirited discourse does nothing to improve our society. To that, I'll say, ok--and anyon'e mean spirited diatribes does nothing to improve society.
This reminds me of an amusing thing I recently ran into, a discussion from the SL board in the year 2007 about Rush Limbaugh's use of Shankman's parody The Magic Negro* sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. I saved a particularly fullsome post from elad (who is no longer with us and that is a good thing, talk about mean spirited!) and Mr. elad along with others sputtered and moaned at the idea of this. It clearly crossed that line with him. But me, I thought that the IDEA of Shankman's song was hilarious. I don't remember if I actually listened all the way through the song or not. I love parody but ideas are often funnier than execution.
*The Magic Negro references an archetype in folk literature, and Paul Shankman's song is about the entry of Barack Obama into the political arena. Clever it was.
Oh, you mean me. I think there are several points in this discussion, not just one, but if you mean the primary point that started the discussion which was RUSH LIMBAUGH DISSED FLUKE CHICK AND HE IS AN EVIL D*CKHEAD FOR THAT then I haven't "missed" it but I don't necessarily agree with it.
I sometimes find Rush funny (well, a little goes a long way) but haven't listened to his opinion piece on the Fluke chick. His schtick is commonly to make fun of people. Why is she special and off limits? In the broader point, if Fluke and all women are out of bounds for Rush because they are women, that is paternalism masquerading as protection.
Oh, and one thing I DO know is gay Republicans because in my neighborhood of about a gazillion gay men there are a few Republicans.Your statement that the "party hates them" is a silly characterization, but they are smart enough not to fall for that overwrought blather. Oddly enough, the gay Republicans I know really ARE particularly smart, it seems to me.
And I guess if you are in lockstep agreement with all tenants of your party, good for you. The rest of us have to choose among options that best represent our point of view, there is no one combination that best fits.
If someone on this forum took the same tact that Rush took toward someone who expressed an opinion here, although some people may take it as funny, I would think (hope?) that most would consider it a nasty, personal attack that was unacceptable and added nothing to the discussion at hand.
If someone on this forum took the same tact that Rush took toward someone who expressed an opinion here, although some people may take it as funny, I would think (hope?) that most would consider it a nasty, personal attack that was unacceptable and added nothing to the discussion at hand.
Sure, agreed, because this is a community with personal relations (though distant) and the social contract calls for us to not deliberately be mean to one another and still expect to remain part of the group.
Rush Limbaugh isn't part of our community here. He produces, in my opinion, 2 hours and 58 minutes of useless blather each day, and 2 minutes of interesting, thought provoking, and sometimes amusing content. Once in a while the amount of useful content is more than 2 minutes. My theory is that he saves the best material for the 2nd hour (which is the one most commonly broadcast because not all stations take all 3 hours of the show) and so that's where the gold nuggets will be, if there are any on that day of broadcast.
By that quote, none of these things would have been covered (or should not be).
And, it's arguably true. We could simply have coverage for catastrophic circumstances, and then the rest we pay out of pocket -- drugs included unless within the catastrophic origin...
ah, now you are getting it!
flowerseverywhere
3-3-12, 2:13pm
Because I had heard the commentary from the young lady he seems to have been talking about, and besides, are there rules for who can comment on specific subjects?
Why so confrontational?
I wasn't meaning to be confrontational, but rather to point out that had you heard his exact comments I find it hard to believe you wouldn't be horrified. It makes no matter which side of the health care debate you are on, what your feelings on birth control are, but rather someone who has a large audience said the things he did. Yet another attack on women who are rapidly losing ground and becoming second class citizens in my opinion. Men speaking out against women.
these are some quote as a for instance:
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=726064#.T1Jr3vWiYgM
"Limbaugh immediately took to the airwaves and went on the attack. "What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke who goes before congressional committee and essentially says she must be paid to have sex," Limbaugh said. "What does that make her? It makes her a slut? Right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."
And it didn't end there. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it," Limbaugh went on to say. "And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."
and he sees no reason for an apology.
Now if he said something like "I disagree that her health insurance that she pays for should be forced to pay for birth control" I would have no issue. But to call someone out like that is really mean, ugly and reprehensible.
ApatheticNoMore
3-3-12, 2:18pm
But he does pay for his own drugs - even if it's not always legally.
Now THAT is an important (and funny!) point.
Actually while this might be true for straight up heroine or cocaine (100% black market), for prescription pain pills, it is not EVEN an ACCURATE point! Those drugs are usually originally obtained through prescription. There is a dealer here who gets his oxys through the VA (oh yea you read that right - your tax dollars at work - the VA). Now he may actually ingest some of them (whether for pain or recreation/addiction I couldn't say). But he sells the rest. So the drug buyer pays the dealer, who pockets the profits from drug dealing that were orginally subsidized through the government (in cases where it isn't the government, I'm sure people are abusing insurance plans to deal also).
One could extend Rush's statement - under the argument he laid out wouldn't any women expecting their prenatal and delivery care to be covered, STD testing, childcare tax credits, heathcare coverage for any children they have, public schools, etc., etc. basically the same?
Yea in truth I have the feeling childfree women are actually doing a lot of subsidizing. Employer plans offer options to put on spouses or dependents. Are employers paying part of the costs of this? If so childfree women are being RIPPED OFF, they should be getting raises to compensate for the money they are saving employers here. What about the tax code? Isn't it obvious childfree women pay more taxes having no deductions? But childfree women aren't engaging in huge outcries about this? Well as for healthcare, some of us realize it might actually be better for society if the kids do get prenatal care etc.. Although when it gets to the point where taxpayers are subsidizing people having dozens of kids it really has gone to far - and the child tax credit should definitely cut off at a certain number of kids.
But I do understand what is the broader point which is: Rush Limbaugh's mean spirited discourse does nothing to improve our society. To that, I'll say, ok--and anyon'e mean spirited diatribes does nothing to improve society
Yea, basically, that's it and it actually damages society. Now of course I don't take it as seriously as actual laws, because um it DOESN'T have the force of law!! It just doesn't. But making society a cesspool isn't really that cool (it sometimes even backfires in terms of laws as we end up with precisely the government hateful people deserve). And the medias attitudes about sex are still all screwed up. Certainly neither hollywood with it's unreality (they seldom talk about birth control in the movies do they?) or some right wing nut cases who goes on about a woman having lots of sex! because she uses birth control, have at all an attitude based in reality about sex.
I wasn't meaning to be confrontational, but rather to point out that had you heard his exact comments I find it hard to believe you wouldn't be horrified. It makes no matter which side of the health care debate you are on, what your feelings on birth control are, but rather someone who has a large audience said the things he did. Yet another attack on women who are rapidly losing ground and becoming second class citizens in my opinion. Men speaking out against women.
these are some quote as a for instance:
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=726064#.T1Jr3vWiYgM
"Limbaugh immediately took to the airwaves and went on the attack. "What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke who goes before congressional committee and essentially says she must be paid to have sex," Limbaugh said. "What does that make her? It makes her a slut? Right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."
And it didn't end there. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it," Limbaugh went on to say. "And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."
and he sees no reason for an apology.
Now if he said something like "I disagree that her health insurance that she pays for should be forced to pay for birth control" I would have no issue. But to call someone out like that is really mean, ugly and reprehensible.
I immediately lose interest in discussions where someone tells me how I am supposed to feel. "Horrified" is an emotion, so sorry, I won't be following your directive that I must feel that way or (I assume) be some freak of nature.
But about the quote that you posted: I think it's a stupid point on Rush's part (Fluke is paid for sex) and I don't find it funny or clever. It's just stupid. But I did find the bit about posting videos so that he could watch a little bit funny.
edited to add: I also don't agree that women are losing ground or becoming second class citizens and I find that all cant, but that's a whole other thread.
Actually while this might be true for straight up heroine or cocaine (100% black market), for prescription pain pills, it is not EVEN an ACCURATE point! ...
oh please, all of that justification doesn't counter the point that Rush Limbaugh is a stand up guy who, I'm quite certain, pays for his illegally obtained drugs out of his own pocket. Wow you Rush haters will go to any length. :laff::laff::laff:
My vote: If birth control for women is off the table, then so is Viagra, vasectomies, erectile dysfunction, prostate cancer treatment, etc. etc. If women's sexual health isn't covered, then men's should not be either. /end sarcasm/
why? Because they all have to do with treatment of "private parts" (a funny term)? I guess you meant this in a jokey way but people actually put forth this argument as real and have within the past week do so on this website.
Vasectomy is a good analogy to birth control for women, but the rest of it: prostate cancer, ED, Viagra--not even close. The logic escapes me because there IS no logic.
If Rush loses a sponsor, he'll pick up another one. No worries. And if he loses so many that his ad revenue drops so that he makes only $xxx,xxx,xxx in stead of $x,xxx,xxx,xxx then he will suffer! But not much.:laff:
why? Because they all have to do with treatment of "private parts" (a funny term)? I guess you meant this in a jokey way but people actually put forth this argument as real and have within the past week do so on this website.
Vasectomy is a good analogy to birth control for women, but the rest of it: prostate cancer, ED, Viagra--not even close. The logic escapes me because there IS no logic.
If Rush loses a sponsor, he'll pick up another one. No worries. And if he loses so many that his ad revenue drops so that he makes only $xxx,xxx,xxx in stead of $x,xxx,xxx,xxx then he will suffer! But not much.:laff:
For the ED and Viagra one - under religious grounds, unmarried men have no need for treatment.
Added: actually, add in anything outside the bounds of married sex (STD's, etc.). Depending on the employer's beliefs that could extend to anything beyond the bounds of married sex intended solely for the purpose of procreation. Which would limit Viagra coverage to married couples trying to have a child.
oh please, all of that justification doesn't counter the point that Rush Limbaugh is a stand up guy who, I'm quite certain, pays for his illegally obtained drugs out of his own pocket. Wow you Rush haters will go to any length. :laff::laff::laff:
Apparently you didn't read the rest of her explanation as to why and how that isn't likely the case. She's not disagreeing with your claim that he paid his dealer. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the actual important part of her post.
flowerseverywhere
3-3-12, 3:38pm
I immediately lose interest in discussions where someone tells me how I am supposed to feel. "Horrified" is an emotion, so sorry, I won't be following your directive that I must feel that way or (I assume) be some freak of nature.
But about the quote that you posted: I think it's a stupid point on Rush's part (Fluke is paid for sex) and I don't find it funny or clever. It's just stupid. But I did find the bit about posting videos so that he could watch a little bit funny.
edited to add: I also don't agree that women are losing ground or becoming second class citizens and I find that all cant, but that's a whole other thread.
You can feel however you want to. I can understand a lot of things but I can't understand how you are not horrified. Now you are saying I shouldn't feel like that. We could go on like this for months back in forth on who feels what.
In some ways, it is a shame the age of dueling has passed us by.
Then perhaps Rush would run afoul of someone like Julie d'Aubigny while he was bloviating.
:-)
Or the young woman's father. My husband made the comment that had that been his daughter publicly called a slut by the conservative spokesperson, he would be inclined to take it to him.
loosechickens
3-3-12, 4:19pm
Perhaps it might be instructive to read the exact comments that Ms. Fluke made. And then people can judge for themselves if her expression of her views regarding this issue of insurance coverage of contraception deserves in any way having her person demonized, being called a slut and a prostitute, and accused of having "round heels" and having "so much sex", etc., not to mention comments that if contraception is not affordable, women can make pornographic videos of themselves having sex to pay for it.
Try to think, whatever your particular politics, and/or your views on whether insurance companies should be required to cover contraception, how you would feel if YOUR daughter, your wife, your sister, or friend were subject to this kind of filth for doing nothing more than stating, civilly, her feelings about a current issue. Her comments are intelligent, thoughtful, bring out many reasons why being denied this coverage in health care policies that students and their families pay premiums for, but whose coverage is decided based on someone else's religious views, and not the person's being covered at all, can be damaging, and why such coverage as provided for under the new health care act (which coverage is supported by a large majority of Americans), is important.
And for THIS, she has been shamed, dragged through the mud, defamed and by extension, illustrates the disdain and disrespect to women in general that is the ugly underbelly of Rush's (and others) political views.
I invite all to read this young woman's testimony in full, and point out ANYTHING she said that would make HER complicit in receiving this kind of attact and assault.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Hm2SBWz62OkJ:abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%2520hearing.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgm32U83XjAq0LHlxdF9UaPNFCwipNJGYsfKh_2 mmwX30nv1S0hZ3N1DdJzfWS6cWhtPxI4YYwyr0l76cK2HzsVjn I2BBk9o5H94B8K_3fp7_oTIhu0ptaR8nZmz573Gw3CSFKd&sig=AHIEtbRx4-WzlMpGw88ockA93r5bUdH53g&pli=1
loosechickens
3-3-12, 4:24pm
Actually, I believe this is so important, (and I know the reluctance of many to click on and read completely, a link, especially if they already feel they are in disagreement with the person), I'll post it here:
Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this
hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who
will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My
name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit
school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive
Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and
all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation
implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a
Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health
plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a
result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the
country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation
that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously,
the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the
religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have
heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another
woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously
affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens
because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their
voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during
law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships,
that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at
Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told
us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the
pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered,
and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no
choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student
told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it anylonger. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage facethe same choice.
You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways.
Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical
services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to
meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are
being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio,
and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to
refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should
step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many
legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases,
women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire
consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome
and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries.
Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not
intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans,
it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or
Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be
made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t
accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university
administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate
whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a
back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance
representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these
prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend,
and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover
her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was
denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to
prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much
more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100
out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop
taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message
from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency
room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up
thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the
size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove
her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony,
she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night
sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of theremoval of her ovary.
She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does
enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me
have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately
desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally
unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I
needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that
come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart
disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.
Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us
doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so
the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend
of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to
pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers
erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication
since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an
ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these
women are taken seriously.
This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A
woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student
told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how
Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she
was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually
transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover
something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.
As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school
doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students
experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what
did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we
expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable
burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would
live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by
meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities
of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected
that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our
choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the
university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that
if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men,
we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious
university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and weresent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this
choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a
war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The
President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and
universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious
concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something
we can all agree on. Thank you.
Ahh...me? Peggy, I won't argue that Rush and others like him have a fair amount of influence, but in the end they are nothing more than media personalities. Unlike our elected officials they only have to answer to their sponsors. Think of the greatest media conquests you know. M*A*S*H is a particular favorite of mine and one of the most successful shows of all time. That show ruled the media world for many years because it gave people what they wanted to see. Eventually the audience changed or the writers ran out of ideas or for whatever other reason it came to an end. The same thing will happen to Rush. He's not a deity and not immortal. He's just a media personality who figured out what quite a few people want to hear at a particular moment in time. If any of our illustrious politicians ever figure out how to identify and fill a niche like Rush did the world will be their oyster.
I do value your opinion Gregg, but you aren't the national spokesperson for the republican party. He isn't just a media personality, you know it, I know it and the republican party knows it. You example to M*A*S*H really is no comparison. Yea, MASH was popular, but it didn't speak for or hold the short hairs to any political party. No political leader that I know of feared to speak ill of the show in fear of Alan alda speaking out against them. Rush Limbaugh controls every republican politician, and this is why you won't hear a single one speak out against him. Not one. And do you think all of them think it's ok to publicly deride and slander a young woman simply because she wished to testify before congress? All of them? Now what does that say about these 'wonderful' leaders? Oh they all try to skirt it by saying, well, you know, he is just an entertainer, but that is false. Period. If he were just an entertainer, they wouldn't think twice about calling out his intimidation of a congressional witness, cause that's what it was. But you know what we will hear from these 'courageous' republican leaders in congress.....crickets.
Or the young woman's father. My husband made the comment that had that been his daughter publicly called a slut by the conservative spokesperson, he would be inclined to take it to him.
Perhaps I'm too progressive in my thinking, for I believe women should not have to rely on men to defend themselves and their honor, but should be ready, willing, and able to take up the task on their own. We should be well past the age of paternalism and women-as-property of the pater familias by now (well, since Publius Aelius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus at least...).
You left out the part where I said I hadn't heard Limbaugh's remarks. You wouldn't want me to automatically take a stand against something I had no personal knowledge of and no feel for the context in which words were uttered, would you?
And yet you feel perfectly comfortable coming to his defense. Pretty sloppy Alan, to pontificate on an episode you have no knowledge of, or maybe that's your usual MO. I suppose in the future we should read your posts with this in mind. Thanks for the heads up.
And yet you feel perfectly comfortable coming to his defense. Pretty sloppy Alan, to pontificate on an episode you have no knowledge of, or maybe that's your usual MO. I suppose in the future we should read your posts with this in mind. Thanks for the heads up.
Please point out where I came to his defense. I must have missed it.
Perhaps I'm too progressive in my thinking, for I believe women should not have to rely on men to defend themselves and their honor, but should be ready, willing, and able to take up the task on their own. We should be well past the age of paternalism and women-as-property of the pater familias by now (well, since Publius Aelius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus at least...).
I believe we are past this age and have been for a while. It's hard to fight the biological need to protect our children though.
I believe we are past this age and have been for a while. It's hard to fight the biological need to protect our children though.
Agreed. As a father, I'd feel the same impulse in defense of a son or daughter.
I do value your opinion Gregg, but you aren't the national spokesperson for the republican party. He isn't just a media personality, you know it, I know it and the republican party knows it. You example to M*A*S*H really is no comparison. Yea, MASH was popular, but it didn't speak for or hold the short hairs to any political party. No political leader that I know of feared to speak ill of the show in fear of Alan alda speaking out against them. Rush Limbaugh controls every republican politician, and this is why you won't hear a single one speak out against him. Not one. And do you think all of them think it's ok to publicly deride and slander a young woman simply because she wished to testify before congress? All of them? Now what does that say about these 'wonderful' leaders? Oh they all try to skirt it by saying, well, you know, he is just an entertainer, but that is false. Period. If he were just an entertainer, they wouldn't think twice about calling out his intimidation of a congressional witness, cause that's what it was. But you know what we will hear from these 'courageous' republican leaders in congress.....crickets.
I have been dinking around on the web, listening a little to Rush since I never do...
I was looking for Rush in his own words calling Fluke a slut and I came across this segment where Rush is saying that Sen. McConnell's office was calling his show the day of the Blunt Amendment to clarify some things before Rush went on the air
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq8FyXCz450
Rush is a huge, effective megaphone for the conservative platform and many Republicans happen to be conservative - just admit it
Perhaps I'm too progressive in my thinking, for I believe women should not have to rely on men to defend themselves and their honor, but should be ready, willing, and able to take up the task on their own. We should be well past the age of paternalism and women-as-property of the pater familias by now (well, since Publius Aelius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus at least...).
The pater familias will always protect his young, no matter how progressive we get, or how old the daughter is.
I would hope he would come to her defense, just as she would come to his. I never wish to see the day we get so progressive that we cease to defend the honor of each other.
A scratch on the daughter pierces the fathers heart!
I have been dinking around on the web, listening a little to Rush since I never do...
I was looking for Rush in his own words calling Fluke a slut and I came across this segment where Rush is saying that Sen. McConnell's office was calling his show the day of the Blunt Amendment to clarify some things before Rush went on the air
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq8FyXCz450
Rush is a huge, effective megaphone for the conservative platform and many Republicans happen to be conservative - just admit it
And Media Matters participates in weekly conference calls with the White House. http://educationviews.org/2012/02/23/has-media-matters-been-neutered/
Is that a bad thing?
And Media Matters participates in weekly conference calls with the White House. http://educationviews.org/2012/02/23/has-media-matters-been-neutered/
Is that a bad thing?
I guess what I am trying to point out is if Rush really were an 'entertainer' why would McConnells office call him right before a show.
Does the White House or DNC call John Stewart or Colbert before their shows?
Please point out where I came to his defense. I must have missed it.
Alan, this whole thread is about the despicable things Rush said. That's what this thread is about. It isn't a birth control debate. We've had that one.:doh:
Does the White House or DNC call John Stewart or Colbert before their shows?
I don't know, but it has been reported that Media Matters, which provides material whole cloth to MSNBC and a slew of progressive commentators, regularly coordinates their talking points directly with White House staff. Sort of makes you wonder who's working for who doesn't it?
Alan, this whole thread is about the despicable things Rush said. That's what this thread is about. It isn't a birth control debate. We've had that one.:doh:
Well, that didn't answer the question and I'm still no closer to understanding how I came to his defense. Thanks for responding though. >8)
Not really because all you have to do is watch a day or two of news programming and figure out who is getting who's talking points. They all use the same catch phrases depending which side they are on.
MSNBC's 'entertainment programming' is filled with DEMs and reasonable Republicans that will engage in political discourse.
Limbaugh apologizes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-sandra-fluke_n_1318718.html
I don't know, but it has been reported that Media Matters, which provides material whole cloth to MSNBC and a slew of progressive commentators, regularly coordinates their talking points directly with White House staff. Sort of makes you wonder who's working for who doesn't it?
It might, if I knew who your source really is. "Has been reported" means nothing. It's a construction I use when I can't remember where I heard something. Media Matters for America is interesting because its founder--David Brock--was a foaming at the mouth rightie famous for dragging Anita Hill and the Clintons through the mud before he supposedly saw the light. I'd like to think he's sincere now, but he carries some unappealing baggage.
It might, if I knew who your source really is.
Tucker Carlson and The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/).
... Now you are saying I shouldn't feel like that...
Not at all, I think there is room for several emotional reactions to any one thing in life,one size does not fit all.
Rush Limbaugh apologized, so puglogic was right! Even in Rush's world, Rusgh crossed the line.
flowerseverywhere
3-3-12, 8:51pm
Not at all, I think there is room for several emotional reactions to any one thing in life,one size does not fit all.
Rush Limbaugh apologized, so puglogic was right! Even in Rush's world, Rusgh crossed the line.
actually I think hearing other people's opinions, even if they are diverse from yours leads to a lot of personal growth. I think your views on healthcare, for example, are really good, but I think we have gone too far down the road for them to take hold. This particular instance just made me so mad, when I saw what she had said and then what Rush said, I thought he was just so out of line. She didn't do anything wrong, she is a young woman who has the right to her opinions.
What is really funny is that now she is very well known. Most of the American Population would never have heard of her. Maybe she'll be able to have a lawsuit or write a book etc. and get some money out of this and be able to pay not only for her birth control but for a lot of women.
ah, now you are getting it!
you act as if i've never put forth this idea before (though maybe I haven't in this forum?).
here in NZ, our primary coverage is catastrophic.
we also have what i would consider "basic care" -- physicals, prenatal/birth care, etc. Anything in between is pretty much managed by individuals on their own, and in a variety of ways. private health insurance for allopathic care, or using alternative care.
most people use alternative care and pay out of pocket. this is why homeopathy and acupuncture/tcm and herbalism are so darn popular here. If people have "the common cold" they go to their homeopath or naturopath or acupuncturist -- not their "doctor." And they pay out of pocket.
If a person is mowing the lawn and injures themselves, they go to the hospital or physiotherapist and get an ACC form describing the accident. If ACC decides that the accident warrants coverage, they provide it. If not, then the person pays out of pocket.
The system works. This is one that our taxes happen to pay for because . . . as a community the country values everyone getting this care as opposed to having a super-big standing army or something.
I read Rush's apology.
I still don't understand his point about what "american citizens should pay for." nothing in the law asserts that tax dollars will be paying for contraception (anymore than it already does). Simply, that private citizens who are purchasing private insurance cannot get coverage that they want, that they are effectively attempting to pay for, but cannot pay for because the insurance company or company who is choosing the policy and insurance company on behalf of it's employees is making that decision FOR those citizens rather than the CITIZENS MAKING THAT DECISION FOR THEMSELVES.
And that is my biggest "bone" to pick about insurance. DH's company was choosing the company and policy, and it was our least expensive option (and I did look at alternative options), and still cost us $36,000 while we had it, and we only used $11k of it (or so), and paid out of pocket for medical care too (though about $1200 should have been reimbursed and wasn't!).
As far as I'm concerned, if I'm putting money into a policy, I should darn well be able to go to the company and say "this is what I want out of my policy" -- and we can make price adjustments or whatever as necessary, but I should be able to say "I gave you $10k over the last three years, and I'd like to use some of the money that you would spend on a hospital birth with an OB or midwife on a homebirth. It's only $3k, and much less than you'd spend anyway. Let's do it!" But NO.
I'm sorry, but hte only "people" telling americans citizens what they can/should spend their money on is. . . companies and the insurance policies that they purchase.
How is that kosher?
Likewise, contraception is not about a recreational activity.
Good god, I can't believe it has to be explained. And, the way he understands cost is ridiculous.
Let me see if I can make sense of my mind on this.
He postulates that if a person is having "a lot of sex" then they need 'a lot of contraception" as if it's a pay=per=use system. I suppose for guys, it is. You buy a box of condoms, and if you have A LOT of sex, then you spend A LOT on condoms.
But for women, it's different. You take a pill that you have to take daily -- whether you have A LOT of sex or no sex or some sex. It's not like you only take the pill when you are having sex, and when you are not having sex you don't take it.
And, most other forms of female birth control just stay or are reusable -- diaphragms and cervical caps last years, typically only need to be refitted after the birth of a baby. IUDs go in once and usually last 5-7 years. Whether you have sex a little or a lot, you buy these things and use them one way or antoher.
So this idea that "american citizens are paying so that women can have a lot of sex" is completely ridiculous. It's simply doesn't follow logically.
and, there's this comparison that birth control is like sneakers? that if a person wants to take up running we should subsidize sneakers? it makes no sense, and it makes no relevant point.
I think much of this kurfluffle would go away if we didn't expect our employers to buy health care insurance for us.
I mean, we don't expect them to provide food, clothing, housing, iPhones, automobiles, or other essentials of life either. They just hand us little pieces of green paper with pictures of George Washington on them, and we happily go off and purchase the goods and services we want, ourselves, without their helpful interference.
there's a whole history to that 'expectation.'
aside from that, we did try to get the most basic coverage from both the insurance company that DH's company chose (which is why we went with high deductable anyway) and then from other insurance companies.
do you know how hard it is to get that insurance? nigh on impossible. I couldn't find a plan that made any sense, and that would provide coverage if we were in a car accident or something nuts happened.
and our employers do cover our other things. they pay us money for our work, which we in turn use to pay for cell phones.
in addition, our employers provide a match on retirement (benefit) and also a part of our health insurance (benefit) -- for which we also put up a contribution (or can choose not to and thereby not be insured there -- and technically choose to not be insured at all).
this is troubling on so many levels. We all know that lack of birth control results in unwanted children. Children which we end up supporting financially in many ways.
Rush's comments were over the top and made the whole Republican party look bad.
I am 55 and eveyone knows, especially me, that taking birth controls pills is not always about being protected from unwanted births. If I were she, I'd be looking for a way to cash in on his slanderous comments...........
I think much of this kurfluffle would go away if we didn't expect our employers to buy health care insurance for us.
I mean, we don't expect them to provide food, clothing, housing, iPhones, automobiles, or other essentials of life either. They just hand us little pieces of green paper with pictures of George Washington on them, and we happily go off and purchase the goods and services we want, ourselves, without their helpful interference.
Before insurance agencies inserted themselves into the equation with their pie-in-the sky promises, people used to be able to pay for medical care--including hospital stays--without having to declare bankruptcy. I'd love to see a return to a non-profit, fee-based system.
Not really because all you have to do is watch a day or two of news programming and figure out who is getting who's talking points. They all use the same catch phrases depending which side they are on.
MSNBC's 'entertainment programming' is filled with DEMs and reasonable Republicans that will engage in political discourse.
My emphasis. I was just going to gloss over this one, but I can't let a comment pointing out that the Dems on MSNBC are unreasonable be swept under the carpet. I agree. I'd probably listen/watch MSNBC more often if they sought out more of the Republican, reasonable viewpoint. Just like a lot of the libs here would listen to Rush if he were a little less insulting.
ApatheticNoMore
3-4-12, 12:07pm
If it was the economic argument being made: that adding birth control to insurance policies will probably just increase everyone's cost of insurance (as will adding anything to these policies), then that is probably right. Yes on the surface it might seem that adding birth control would save insurance companies money, but if so you do have to wonder why they didn't do it themselves? Fear of religious controversy? This seems entirely possible. Most people either buying birth control themselves or getting it through planned parenthood and so there is no real savings? The benefits of people adding new policy members (otherwise known as kids), outweighing the cost savings? In this cases you have people too cheap to buy birth control somehow ending up able to pay to add a dependent. Puzzling or only explainable by human stupidity.
So that's your standard economic argument, unintended consequences, etc., hardly new to conservative economic thought (and in some cases grudgingly even acknowledged by liberal economists). But instead of trying for an argument that might actually be rationally defensible, you happen to be Rush Limbaugh, whose extremely profitable show relies on knee jerk adolescent emotional reaction. The pure reactivity that most people even if they feel have the good sense not to voice, you get paid for voicing. All in a good days entertainment. So you rant about a woman having too much sex (even though even the too much is ridiculous, a person may have sex very infrequently and want to be protected).
The good social liberals get hint of it and know exactly how to use it, when they aren't thinking "hey Dr Freud, oh Dr Freud ...", what is this guys issue anyway? Probably no issues really, but he sure does know how to play on his followers ahem issues.
The problem with moving insurance off employers at this point, is that most people know if everything else stayed the same it would be close to entirely unaffordable. And they know that by simply looking at their premiums plus what the employer pays. So my insurance would be around 6k a year. Wow, half of what I pay for rent and if I doubt what I get for my rent money I need only look around me. As opposed to an insurance plan where you can pay for decades upon decades (certainly the case since I have had insurance) and barely use more than a couple thousand dollars worth in all that time really. Meanwhile everything is overprescribed and so I'm paying for everyone's anti-depressants, everyone's ADD medicines (which some people are only taking so they can endure boring jobs - that's anecdotal but I have heard people admit that reason), everyone's Lipitor (which is ok so long as it's preventing heart attacks but see the thread here on that), even paying for drugs that end up on the street. All when I'm philosophically inclined to avoid meds whenever reasonable. And massive money is funneled into pharmaceutical coffers. But birth control must be opposed not just because it's another mandate that will probably backfire but because it's somehow particularly bad (someone is having lots of sex!). Oh the horror .... :~) And the economic argument isn't even interesting anymore when vast quantities of poison venom are being injected into the culture.
Although the Christian conservitives endorce Rush whole heartedly, I personally as a Christian, have a hard time seeing Jesus saying to Rush, Well done thou good a faithful servant. The old poem, "If Jesus came to your house to spend a day or two..." comes to mind.
Rush's "apology" is equally offensive. It reminds me of bullies, whether on the playground, workplace or marriage, who when backed against a wall say, Oh I was just kidding around. I didn't mean it viciously. Can't you take a joke?
If you truly object to Rush, do what I do. Ignore him. His success is in no small part due to the frenzied responses of the takers-of-offense community. Resist the temptation to use him as some kind of validation for holding all those unenlightened poltroons who disagree with you in contempt, and his influence will be reduced down to the Rachel Maddow level in no time.
And Media Matters participates in weekly conference calls with the White House. http://educationviews.org/2012/02/23/has-media-matters-been-neutered/
Is that a bad thing?
"It might, if I knew who your source really is. "Has been reported" means nothing. It's a construction I use when I can't remember where I heard something. Media Matters for America is interesting because its founder--David Brock--was a foaming at the mouth rightie famous for dragging Anita Hill and the Clintons through the mud before he supposedly saw the light. I'd like to think he's sincere now, but he carries some unappealing baggage. " (JaneV2.0)
"Tucker Carlson and The Daily Caller. " (Alan)
I wonder if Carlson was one of the group of right-wing pundits who regularly met privately with President Bush 43. According to Scott McCLellan, the White House regularly fed talking points to Fox News. (Or was it the other way around? ;)) I don't know if the Bush administration was the first to sponsor closed-door meetings with like-minded media representatives, but obviously a precedent has been set.
Although the Christian conservitives endorce Rush whole heartedly, I personally as a Christian, have a hard time seeing Jesus saying to Rush, Well done thou good a faithful servant. The old poem, "If Jesus came to your house to spend a day or two..." comes to mind.
Rush's "apology" is equally offensive. It reminds me of bullies, whether on the playground, workplace or marriage, who when backed against a wall say, Oh I was just kidding around. I didn't mean it viciously. Can't you take a joke?
+1
If you truly object to Rush, do what I do. Ignore him. His success is in no small part due to the frenzied responses of the takers-of-offense community. Resist the temptation to use him as some kind of validation for holding all those unenlightened poltroons who disagree with you in contempt, and his influence will be reduced down to the Rachel Maddow level in no time.
+2
I love Rachel Maddow. Brilliant, funny, and unfailingly well-mannered. In short, nothing like Rush Limbaugh. I would be proud and thrilled to be her mother, but alas...
I have to laugh at those who would equate the likes of Bill O'Reilly (seen here screaming at the son of a 9-11 victim)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwIRNM5noY
or Limbaugh with any of the leftie pundits I regularly listen to (e.g. Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Chris Matthews, and others).
Whatever one's political/religious beliefs may be, nobody is ever justified in indulging in the invective-laden tirades Limbaugh went into for several days. He could have said that his personal belief is that sex is a social activity and should be paid for by the persons engaging in it, and been well within bounds. His sweeping character-assassination of Fluke, Georgetown College, and women who use birth control drugs for any reason (including birth control!) is way out of bounds. Calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute, and accusing her of flagrant promiscuity since she was high school, is totally beyond reason. Free speech is one thing, hate speech is another. Further, that ridiculous excuse for an apology - he made some bad word choices! - is a classic abuser tactic. Note, Limbaugh said he didn't intend to make a personal attack on Ms. Fluke, with the implication being that nobody should see his smear campaign as the personal attack it so obviously was. Actually, the incident can be summed up as:
Classic abuser:
Sets out to hurt the victim. When called on his/her behaviour by social peers,
1. Makes feeble apology that does not take responsibility for actions/words.
2. Tries to diminish gravity of actions/words.
3. Denies intent to hurt the victim/often claims s/he was only joking.
4. Finds a way to throw the guilt back onto the victim - I wouldn't have done this if you hadn't done that.
5. Uses hyperbole to cast ridicule on victim - should we have to pay for running shoes for everybody who decides to get fit?
To me, it boils down to: Should Rush Limbaugh have called Fluke a slut, a prostitute, and a round-heeled woman? Should he have accused her of promiscuity since she reached her teen years? Does he have real evidence based on his own knowledge of Fluke that she is promiscuous? Three Nos make this slander and verbal battery, as well as flagrant transgression of the Harm Principle.
5. Uses hyperbole to cast ridicule on victim - should we have to pay for running shoes for everybody who decides to get fit?
Not so ridiculous - Republican representative in 2006 submitted a bill to update tax code to treat certain amounts paid for exercise equipment and physical fitness programs as amounts paid for medical care.
flowerseverywhere
3-5-12, 1:22pm
excellent Suzanne.
There are things that can be done. Send a message to your local radio station (over 600 broadcast his show) about how you feel. Write to his sponsors- send e-mails, tweets, phone calls or comments on facebook.
go on his webpage and see what further statements he has put up to justify his behavior.
Interesting to bring up slander -- i wonder if she would have a viable court case for it. . .
There are things that can be done. Send a message to your local radio station (over 600 broadcast his show) about how you feel. Write to his sponsors- send e-mails, tweets, phone calls or comments on facebook.
Flowers, that is the most lucid and sensible outline for an appropriate action in this entire post. Thank you. :+1:
ETA: It appears several of those sponsors ARE (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/05/limbaugh-advertisers-jump-ship/?hpt=hp_c2)listening to their customers...
I've already signed 5 petitions and my keyboard hasn't run dry yet...Limbaugh should not be permitted to weasel his way out of the mess he made for himself. His attack on Ms. Fluke was completely unjustifiable. With luck, this may serve as a wake-up call for other shock jocks drunk on the ability to hide behind the right to free speech.
This is what Rush Limbaugh said about and to Ms. Fluke:
"she’s having so much sex (and her buddies with her) that she can’t afford it… did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?…They’re lined up around the block… Ms. Fluke, who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade, or your contraception?” He repeatedly called her a slut, said she was a prostitute, and then backed off the prostitute slur to call her a round-heels instead - hardly an improvement in moral status...
He repeated his comments some 53 times over 3 days.
Now, what does this have to do with Limbaugh's religious freedom to refuse to use contraception? Or anybody else's right to use it?
And then there's the double standard: where is Limbaugh's rage over the promiscuous men having sex with these promiscuous women? Why isn't he offering free aspirin to every man capable of having sex, so said man can hold the aspirin tablet between his knees when he goes out on a date?
flowerseverywhere
3-5-12, 6:47pm
thanks gregg. I also wrote a letter to my newspaper encouraging others to do the same and put a post on my facebook page.
If you go on facebook and look at Rush's page there are over 14,000 comments about this incident. A lot of really crazy stuff being said.
I am not sure my stomach could take that, but thanks flowers :)
And for a new twist on this....
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/rush-limbaugh-to-be-honored-in-state-captiol-s-hall/article_36b99152-66fb-11e1-af45-0019bb30f31a.html
Gee, do you think it was a...wait for it...republican who put him up for nomination? Isn't this just lovely. A bust of Limbaugh, right next to Harry Truman and Mark Twain. What a moment of pride for Missourians....:(
Well, he is a famous Missourian. He and I are actually contemporaries, growing up about 30 miles apart in Southeast Missouri.
I've already signed 5 petitions and my keyboard hasn't run dry yet...
There are enough of these :+1: to go around. Take an atta' girl* out of petty cash Suzanne because signing petitions and contacting sponsors (or even boycotting if their views do not align with your own) is exactly the response that is appropriate if you are displeased with the conduct of someone in Mr. Limbaugh's position. Well done.
*In case anyone doesn't know that is not meant to be condescending. (I really talk that way.)
here's the thing. most of the sponsors of most of the things that I disagree with or what have you. . . i'm not involved with anyway. I might contact them, but it has no force really, because I didn't use them anyway.
A friend of mine sent around a list like "boycott GMO!" and a list of companies, right? And I was like "i haven't eaten food from these companies in over 12 years." Seriously, I'm already boycotting it. LOL
All I can do now is just complain about it. ;)
flowerseverywhere
3-5-12, 10:33pm
There is a facebook page called flush rush: list of Limbaughs sponsors (there is a picture of a red toilet). People are listening to the broadcast and listing all the ads and how to contact the companies. Several radio stations have dropped him and the movement is gaining momentum. There are examples of letters that people are writing. This facebook page predates the recent fiasco
I do find it disturbing that the Armed Forces network is one of the sponsors and they have no plans to stop airing the show. Also it is reported the US Marines advertise on the show.
flowerseverywhere
3-5-12, 10:41pm
I am not sure my stomach could take that, but thanks flowers :)
actually reading the comments on Rush Limbaugh's facebook page was very enlightening. Lots of accusations- racism etc. about 100 times worse than anything I have seen here. Like being a fly on the wall in a world gone amok.
ApatheticNoMore
3-5-12, 11:07pm
here's the thing. most of the sponsors of most of the things that I disagree with or what have you. . . i'm not involved with anyway. I might contact them, but it has no force really, because I didn't use them anyway.
A suspicion (call it ANM's law): if you actually draw out all the connections (and not at 8 degrees of seperation or anything - but I mean substantial connections), you'll end up boycotting ALL large companies at a certain point (and I do mean large companies not mid-size ones).
I have not drawn out all the connections and ahem I do not boycott all large companies (but there aren't that many I patronize either).
If you draw out the military industrial complex - the mercenary companies. If you draw out GMO and well I might call it the poisoning of the food supply as such is my beliefs about GMO and related practices. If your draw out crony capitalism and bailouts and naked taxpayer theft that has NEVER gotten paid back. If you draw out wholesale destruction of the environment, massive destruction of natural resources, massive contributions to climate change (I mean sure lots of things contribute *some*, but I'm talking the truly guilty parties here).
I'm not actually boycotting anyone right now as far as I know, and Rush Limbaugh is not my cause to start a boycott. I was all gung ho about boycotting Valero and Arco (Arco is BP) gas when they tried to hijack the the initiative process in this state, but then I realized I never buy gas from them anyway. I guess I boycott buying non-recycled tiolet paper (the thing is any boycotts I have truly internalized like this just become automatic).
ApatheticNoMore
3-5-12, 11:13pm
actually reading the comments on Rush Limbaugh's facebook page was very enlightening. Lots of accusations- racism etc. about 100 times worse than anything I have seen here. Like being a fly on the wall in a world gone amok.
Rush Limbaughs page may be worse (no, no I don't want to take a look :)), but you'll find a fair amount of that all over the internet on all sorts of sites if you read comments.
Well, he is a famous Missourian. He and I are actually contemporaries, growing up about 30 miles apart in Southeast Missouri.
You hail from a beautiful part of our grand country, m'dear. I spent 7 years in Columbia, and love the state of MO.
flowerseverywhere
3-6-12, 8:24am
Sometimes you just have to send a clear message, which is why I think it is important for those that are outraged and disturbed about this whole incident. Will rush go away? Probably not. He is the most widely listened to radio show (according to them). Maybe his message of hate against women will be toned down. Because if you read this woman's original comments and then what Rush said for three days over 50 times it was just so out of line and ridiculous.
I for one stand up for what I believe in. I go to my school board meetings and town planning meetings because I am not going to be one of those people who scratches their heads and says "why was that decision made." Sometimes there are two or three of us sitting in the chairs as really big decisions are made (our school district is over 5,000 kids). I grow as much of my own heirloom food as I can and patronize local farmers who use sustainable agricultural practices. To me standing up against hate is just one more thing that is important to do to make the world a better place.
Will anything I do make any difference in the world? Am I more than a drop of water in an ocean? Maybe not, but I have to live with myself and my values and morals. Just like I would not turn my head if I saw a child being abused I cannot stand by and not at least do something.
dado potato
3-6-12, 8:45am
From Limbaugh's comments which were aired on MSNBC, he seems to think sponsors who cut-and-run can be replaced with other sponsors who "want the business" of his listeners.
When a local station ceases to broadcast his show, it makes his audience smaller, thus making his show a little less attractive to his remaining advertisers (who are not disturbed by his expressed values, nor the storm of disgust in response to his baiting of women as consumers of health insurance).
I have emailed a congratulatory message 2 radio stations that cancelled Rush. (I assume that their inboxes are unusually full, now that it has been made public in the Huffington Post that they cancelled the show.)
WBEC Pittsfield Mass... Cancelled Rush but still have Glenn Beck, Hannity, etc. http://www.live959.com
KPUA Hilo, Hawaii ... Cancelled Rush on decency grounds. http://www.kpua.net
flowerseverywhere
3-6-12, 9:44am
Thank you, excellent point Dado P.
Well, he is a famous Missourian. He and I are actually contemporaries, growing up about 30 miles apart in Southeast Missouri.
If fame were the only criteria, then why aren't Frank and Jesse James in the Hall of Fame in the state house? That's a bogus excuse and that speaker actually said, "well, Harry Truman had his detractors. Limbaugh is no different than Truman"
The Hall isn't just a grocery list of famous people. It's an honor, and for this republican speaker to pander/honor Rush Limbaugh is disgusting. This tells us a whole lot about this speaker, his decision making, his ability to govern, and what he thinks of Missourians in his district and state wide.
I hope Missourians not only voice their displeasure directly to this republican speaker but also to anyone who would play in his Speakers Annual Golf Classic, which is used to pay for it.
What town did you grow up in? I'm familiar with that area as I have family in Poplar Bluff. Just curious.
What town did you grow up in? I'm familiar with that area as I have family in Poplar Bluff. Just curious.
I have family in Poplar Bluff as well. I grew up in Sikeston which is about 40 miles east of there and about 30 miles south of Cape Girardeau where the Limbaugh family lived.
Good for you, Dado! I've just emailed my Congresswoman my congratulations.
Seriously, this incident with Rush "how low can he go" Limbo is disturbing. Has this society made verbal abuse and battery a virtue? Why should foul speech spewing from a foul mind be considered amusing? The conflicts between Protestants and Catholics started derailing when one woman, outraged by yet another school bus bombing, starting knocking on people's doors in the night and calling out "What kind of people have we become?" I think the time is ripe for the USA to question what kind of nation it has become/is becoming, and set some standards of decency for public discourse. Limbaugh could have found plenty of material for humor without launching a character assassination on a young woman of whom he has no personal knowledge.
For the religious Christian, consider this:
The Ten Commandments contain a strict forbidding of bearing false witness against your neighbor.
Limbaugh has undeniably done this, not once, but repeatedly (53 times over 3 days).
Given that Limbaugh has no grounds at all for these statements, it is obvious that he lied and lied again.
The Bible tells us distinctly that God has no truck with lies, and that the Father of Lies is Satan.
"red hot talent on loan from God?" I think not!
I have family in Poplar Bluff as well. I grew up in Sikeston which is about 40 miles east of there and about 30 miles south of Cape Girardeau where the Limbaugh family lived.
Small world, I lived in Bertrand, graduated from Charleston in 1975. Still have relatives there.
Wow, 13 pages of outrage over this. I don't remember anyone upset when Bill Maher called Palin a c*nt. I guess the liberal media has to look for something.
This says it best for me:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-limbaugh-apologize-20120304,0,1078435.story
Particularly this PP:
"Limbaugh has led the way in destroying civility in politics. It’s bad enough that his overbearing pseudo-patriotism has been emulated by other right-wing radio and TV commentators; worse is the fact he has become the oracle of the dominant wing of the Republican Party. Gone are the days when William F. Buckley*spoke for conservatism in an eloquent, reasoned voice or when Ronald Reagan could share a drink and trade jokes with Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill. It is now cool for conservatives to talk trash and act like 14-year-old louts harassing the gay kid in class."
I don't think the liberal media had to look for this. after all, he said it 53 times over 3 days across 9 hrs of programing. Maher apparently called Palin a "c*nt" -- what? once in a program (and then went on to use bimbo, ****, over several others).
And, he was also called out for it by NOW and many media outlets as well.
Small world, I lived in Bertrand, graduated from Charleston in 1975. Still have relatives there.
Yes it is a small world. I never spent much time in Bertrand other than passing through on my way to Charleston or East Prairie. Graduated from Sikeston in 72 and still have relatives all over the area.
Yea, I do remember something about it but I never actually saw it cause, to be honest, Maher is on a premium channel that a whole lot of us don't pay for. And he doesn't speak for the Democratic party. Not really a fair comparison to Limbaugh, the spokesperson/leader of the republican party and on 3 hours a day on the open airwaves. Not making an excuse for him mind you. Nasty hate speech is nasty hate speech, but there is no comparison on the left to Limbaugh, no matter how hard you look. I suppose if Nancy Pelosi called her a c*nt that would be a comparison. Heck, even if Rachael Maddow or Chris Matthews called her one that might be somewhat of a comparison, although you still don't have that controlling power over the party like Limbaugh has over the republicans. But they haven't, and they won't.
Even Ed Schultz hasn't gone that far, and he gets pretty worked up, which is why I stopped watching him. Kieth Olbermann hasn't gone that far, although sometimes I think he could. I stopped watching him too. Hell, it feels like he is even lecturing ME when he gives one of his speeches..even though I usually agree with the content!:0!
...Limbaugh, the spokesperson/leader of the republican party...
I don't think anyone except you has appointed him to that position. Certainly not the many people he has accused of being RINOs.
but there is no comparison on the left to Limbaugh, no matter how hard you look.
Have you ever listened to Randi Rhoads? Every bit as bad as Limbaugh. Both sides have parties who get out of line and don't speak for everyone or even the majority.
loosechickens
3-6-12, 7:11pm
Insofar as the "honoring" of Rush Limbaugh in Missouri......I think some people are unable to understand the very real difference between "famous" and "notorious".
The Storyteller
3-6-12, 7:35pm
I'm all for tar and feathering the guy for this, and hope he loses his business in a big way.
But it's because of his views in general, not just this one incident.
Have you ever listened to Randi Rhoads? Every bit as bad as Limbaugh. Both sides have parties who get out of line and don't speak for everyone or even the majority.
Never heard of the guy. Again, no comparison. I'm sure you can find lots of bloggers and thread posts that spew garbage like Rush, but comparing Rush Limbaugh to some nobody is laughable. Even Rush would laugh at that one.
I don't think anyone except you has appointed him to that position. Certainly not the many people he has accused of being RINOs.
He has appointed himself, and the deafening silence from the right tells me they agree. They are terrified of this guy, which gives him all the power. And he can be an equal opportunity smear machine, i.e. all the republicans he calls RINOs, if any, ANY dare cross him. That is why he is the leader, spokesman. The ditto heads, sheeple, and hate mongers listen to him because he is the one doing all the talking.
Believe me, it would be refreshing if even one republican leader, say, one of those running for the most important job in the world, would step forward and say Limbaugh's hate filled speech is unacceptable, and here's why. But they won't cause, in the end, they are all cowards.
Never heard of the guy. Again, no comparison. I'm sure you can find lots of bloggers and thread posts that spew garbage like Rush, but comparing Rush Limbaugh to some nobody is laughable. Even Rush would laugh at that one.
Never heard of her? She was one of the premier talent's on Air America, but probably best known for her rants. Including the following:
"Geraldine Ferraro turned out to be the David Duke in drag ... What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a ****ing whore! I wanna see her have to stand beside her husband at one of those mandatory 'I have sinned against you; I'm a whore' kind of a press conference. Mr. Ferraro should have to stand next to his whore of a wife ... Hillary is a big ****ing whore, too. You know why she's a big ****ing whore? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, asshole!'"
Never heard of the guy. Again, no comparison. I'm sure you can find lots of bloggers and thread posts that spew garbage like Rush, but comparing Rush Limbaugh to some nobody is laughable. Even Rush would laugh at that one.
Randi Rhoads is a gal who was on Air America. She wasn't a minor blogger, she had her own show on the flagship liberal station. If I recall correctly, she was eventually fired for one of her stunts.
My point, despite your assertions to the contrary, is that both sides are equally guilty of this type of behavior.
On another topic, I suppose the lefts hatred Sarah Palin is all right because she's Sarah Palin? Both sides are guilty. Incidentally, despite your assertions to the contrary, Rush isn't the voice of all conservatives. That's a broad brush.
Finally, I happened to hear some of the commentary by Rush regarding the young lady. I turned the channel as what I heard (not the whole thing) seemed out of line and over the top.
Common guy's , you should know peggy only has time to listen to Rush Beck. She seams infatuated with them. I know I don't listen to them, I'm guessing they have quite a following from the left. They must like getting wound up.
They sure cant be happy with the debt, unemployment, gas prices, loss of individual rights, wars, ect, ect, ect. Lets talk about a radio host that called someone a name. That's what's important.
Oh air America! Now that's a laugh. And how long did that last? I never heard it, even once. And didn't you say she was fired? Well she probable should have been. Gee, isn't it great how the left does at least have some standards. holds it's own to a certain code of ethics. Now, let's fire Rush. Think it'll happen? I wouldn't hold my breath.
You know, I still never heard of HER, but I sure wouldn't defend her and talk like that like you all keep defending Rush. But you know what, keep it up. Keep it up all the way to next November. Keep reminding everyone how warm and fuzzy the republican party has become. In fact, I think you all should start writing op ed pieces in all the local newspapers around the country, and on all the news blogs on line cause, you know, your boy is being smeared. SMEARED i tell ya. Better get to it!
Now, for the majority of people who don't think Rush is just peachy, here is the website of the funding organization that pays for the Missouri state capital art work featuring, apparently, Rush Limbaugh.
http://nonprofitfacts.com/MO/Speakers-Annual-Golf-Classic.html
The Missouri speaker, Steve Tilley, has apparently decided to build a shrine to Rushbo, and embarrass Missourians while soiling the good names of those who are featured in this hall. At this website is a form for sending an e-mail/review. I know the funding organization would love to hear your views on this. Even from you who just love Rush. (make sure your wives and daughters co-sign that)
And you know what Peggy, your correct that Rush was wrong in this instance. So if you don't like it, turn him off. I don't care for Bill Maher so I don't listen to him. But I'm not going to get all up in arms and have him censored. Maher is just an ass so what do I care.
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-12, 3:21am
They sure cant be happy with the debt, unemployment, gas prices, loss of individual rights, wars, ect, ect, ect. Lets talk about a radio host that called someone a name. That's what's important.
Yea, hopefully it will give us 4 more years of Obama!!!
4 more years of extrajudicial assination
4 more years of the NDAA indefinite detention provisions
4 more years of appointing banksters to all the top positions
4 more years of appointing Monsanto employees to head your FDA
4 more years of massive unprecedented spying on Americans
4 more years of indirect bank bailouts
4 more years of global war
4 more years ... is a war with Iran on the docket?
4 more years of a very weak environmental position and very little done for climate change
4 more years of economic malise (though to be honest I haven't got a great answer to this)
4 more years and the economic position of the average person gets worse and worse (But they are not suffering enough yet. How do I know? They don't vote primarily on economic issues)
4 more years and social security and medicare cuts are "on the table"
4 more years and they covered up for BP (what is in store next?)
4 more years of wars between the government and Anonymous and Wikileaks in which I cheer for the so called "bad guys"
I can hardly wait!
It is possible things might improve if we get better people in congress. If not maybe 4 more years of ridiculous internet shutdown and internet spying bills too.
I think, too, that saying "If a liberal did this, no media coverage" -- doesn't matter. This language is at issue -- and I'm shocked that people are defending it, at the very least defending it by saying "but liberals also say offensive things!"
I tend to avoid listening to ALL of these people. I'm not interested in this form of "entertainment" and I know that most of it is distortions of facts (or not even facts at all but complete fabrications), so why bother? If i'm going to be entertained, I'll go watch the ballet and be edified.
And yeah, I'm seriously frustrated with the US in general. Norway is starting to accept americans as political refugees. So, start working on your paperwork now, because I'm sure it'll be a limited number.
I'm truly glad I live in NZ (but also, I'm still voting in the US. You know, because I am vested.)
flowerseverywhere
3-7-12, 7:42am
apathetic, who would do a better job than Obama right now among the candidates that are most likely to be able to defeat Obama?
Can you explain the monsanto link to the FDA, the bankers that head all the top positions, how Obama is more for war with Iran than the current Republicans for example? How is the government in cahoots with BP oil.
Maybe you could start a new thread to prove your points and give specific examples. I really am curious because I have gotten numerous e-mails that say what your post does that don't pan out.
I am not defending the man, especially with NDAA, but I would really like to know and I think it is important for truths to be told, especially in an election year.
.
Common guy's , you should know peggy only has time to listen to Rush Beck. She seams infatuated with them. I know I don't listen to them, I'm guessing they have quite a following from the left. They must like getting wound up.
I'll never understand that kind of zeal for silencing speech you find offensive. Rush is a blatherskite, no doubt, but the media is full of jackassery of every political stripe. As long as nobody makes me pay for it, I can simple ignore what I don't like. Maybe its a world view that requires villains to make sense.
Well, my last word on this...if the spineless cowards some of you want to elect to the most important, stressful and complicated job in the world can't even stand up to a bloated blowhard 'entertainer', then how can they possibly stand up for this most difficult job.
Well, my last word on this...if the spineless cowards some of you want to elect to the most important, stressful and complicated job in the world can't even stand up to a bloated blowhard 'entertainer', then how can they possibly stand up for this most difficult job.
The most intelligent way to deal with a bloated blowhard is to ignore him. Engaging him grants a legitimacy he wouldn't otherwise have had.
Look at this thread. Instead of a discussion of whether the government can force morally objectionable practices on religious institutions, or whether there should be a mandated entitlement for birth control, we see post after post on the awfulness of Rush. Is he really that important?
He has appointed himself...
As of now I appoint myself king. Everyone please bow, including that Obama guy (who's had a little practice). And peggy, no Pepsi for you.
Seriously though. Really? A self appointed ruler? Rush has influence because he's managed to find enough commonality in several million people and then exploit that for financial gain. He had an idea for a business, implemented it and got rich. He is living right at the top of the American dream. Rush produces a product which is geared to fill a (very large) niche. Nothing more than that. Tide and Band-Aids do the same thing from the business perspective. Rush turned out an inferior/offensive product the other day. It was kind of like a bottle of Tide with acid in it that would ruin your clothes if you use it. The difference between Tide and Rush is that an intellectual product can't be recalled. Don't doubt that he wishes that were different.
If you want to get to the bottom of Rush Limbaugh you should be asking questions that would tell you to why so many people are buying Rush's product. There is something lacking in their lives, some void that Rush's ideas fill. You can take the hard line on the left, basically the mirror image of Rush, and say they are a bunch of fundamentalist rednecks who don't have the mental capacity to understand the real world (I believe "sheeple" is the term you used), or you can do a gut check and ask yourself why 10% of this country REALLY listens to what this guy has to say and try to learn something from that information.
Rush is a blatherskite, no doubt, but the media is full of jackassery of every political stripe.
+1 For the thought, but mostly for using the word "blatherskite" in a sentence. Definitely my word of the day for today!!! Jackassery was a close second.
The most intelligent way to deal with a bloated blowhard is to ignore him. Engaging him grants a legitimacy he wouldn't otherwise have had.
Look at this thread. Instead of a discussion of whether the government can force morally objectionable practices on religious institutions, or whether there should be a mandated entitlement for birth control, we see post after post on the awfulness of Rush. Is he really that important?
In certain areas of the country, it is hard to escape Rush on the radio dial if you want to listen to something other than music.
Of course people don't have to listen to him, but if you have a conservative bent and you want to listen to a little talk radio as you make your sales calls or haul your load or shuttle the kids, he's it during popular drive times.
(that brings up a whole new visual for me.... Conservative Soccer Mom shuttling kids to soccer. "Mommy, what's a slut?".... As said mother is spending a small fortune to send her child to Christian School to keep child away from that type of language)
I personally think Rush does a disservice to his listeners and to the country as a whole (Again, he's not an elected official, but as such a self-proclaimed patriot leader who says he wants the best for our country... I guess except when he exclaims that he wants our elected president to fail)....... when he doesn't deal with the question at hand as you point out "a discussion of whether the government can force morally objectionable practices on religious institutions, or whether there should be a mandated entitlement for birth control,"
... he's it during popular drive times...
Here in the heart of Rush country, his home state, her doesn't play during drive times, he's smack in the middle of the day. More lucrative talk show guys air in evening drive time. Our radio is tuned to Frank O Pinion in early evening drive time. Then, I change over to NPR.
Here in the heart of Rush country, his home state, her doesn't play during drive times, he's smack in the middle of the day. More lucrative talk show guys air in evening drive time. Our radio is tuned to Frank O Pinion in early evening drive time. Then, I change over to NPR.
Well, Frank O Pinion better get that list of sponsors leaving Rush b/c hopefully there will be some air space for him to grow his show to start earlier in MO.
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-12, 10:46am
I think, too, that saying "If a liberal did this, no media coverage" -- doesn't matter. This language is at issue -- and I'm shocked that people are defending it, at the very least defending it by saying "but liberals also say offensive things!"
I don't think there are many examples of liberals saying things as bad as this. I mean ok I see Dem politicians shrieking for war and I find it pretty offensive and vile really, but it's not a personal attack.
I tend to avoid listening to ALL of these people. I'm not interested in this form of "entertainment" and I know that most of it is distortions of facts (or not even facts at all but complete fabrications), so why bother?
yea I ignore it too.
And yeah, I'm seriously frustrated with the US in general. Norway is starting to accept americans as political refugees. So, start working on your paperwork now, because I'm sure it'll be a limited number.
Yea so I hear. I hear things like Norway is accepting Americans as POLITICAL REFUGEEES and yet I must get all excited about Obama because I have a uterus. I'm really not supposed to preceive the full reality of what is going on. Oh well I'm just a girl too much thinking can't be expected. I've thought of leaving, can't say I've done much.
I'm truly glad I live in NZ (but also, I'm still voting in the US. You know, because I am vested.)
I actually envy you being out of the country and all. At times I thought I should PM and ask you how it's done :). That depends on how serious I am :). Disgusted? Yes. Sometimes afraid? With NDAA and stuff? Yes. But I do have ties here (heck I defend the honor of California - but I actually like it better than I do the U.S. govt :)).
For some reason, Rush, Palin, Repub's need to be hands off everywhere except my uterus, Herman Cain as a presidential candidate, Newt when he is in the lead, candidates that won't raise their hand that evolution is a reality, walking away from some sweet dealing with Prez resulting in downgrade ---- all give me close to Tourette syndrome.
I guess because I think that there are conservative principals that can really help our country and it's hard to get behind them when the loudest voices are what I think of as nincompoops.
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-12, 10:50am
Here is southern CA there are actually plenty of conservatives on the AM dial but I don't know about exactly what times they are on. But the choices was hardly limited to Rush though it's possible he has a good time slot. I used to play around with AM, heck even Art Bell at midnight :P - believing almost none of it. Now I'm all music FM.
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-12, 1:57pm
apathetic, who would do a better job than Obama right now among the candidates that are most likely to be able to defeat Obama?
Can you explain the monsanto link to the FDA, the bankers that head all the top positions, how Obama is more for war with Iran than the current Republicans for example? How is the government in cahoots with BP oil.
That's a lot of sourcing.
Obama and monsanto:
Monsanto and the FDA under Obama:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/29/MNEN1NDVO3.DTL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html
USDA appointees also controversal:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573.cfm
monsanto GMO alfalfa approved
http://grist.org/business-technology/2011-01-27-in-stunning-reversal-usda-chief-vilsack-greenlights-monsantos-al/
GMO sugar beets approved also:
http://grist.org/food/2011-02-05-usda-defies-court-order-partially-deregulates-gm-sugar-beets/
why Anonymous represents you better than the Obama administration: :) (lesser of two evils anyway)
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-grid/anonymous-monsanto-campaign-dairy-farmers
That's a lot of sourcing.
Obama and monsanto:
Monsanto and the FDA under Obama:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/29/MNEN1NDVO3.DTL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html
USDA appointees also controversal:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573.cfm
monsanto GMO alfalfa approved
http://grist.org/business-technology/2011-01-27-in-stunning-reversal-usda-chief-vilsack-greenlights-monsantos-al/
GMO sugar beets approved also:
http://grist.org/food/2011-02-05-usda-defies-court-order-partially-deregulates-gm-sugar-beets/
why Anonymous represents you better than the Obama administration: :) (lesser of two evils anyway)
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-grid/anonymous-monsanto-campaign-dairy-farmers
But what's the answer to the question of which current presidential candidate (Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich) would address these Monsanto related issues better?
And although it seems many people wish Anonymous was running for Repub ticket, he/she isn't.
I'm just curious from your perspective as a person that knows a lot about this issue.
Is this an issue that would make you sit out Nov 2012?
I don't know what the forum etiquette is on this, but if it is allowed, I'm going to start a thread on Monsanto from yours ANM because I know several people that are really into this issue and I am just ignorant of it.
(Other than your links which I'll get to reading, but would like cliff notes version first)
flowerseverywhere
3-7-12, 3:01pm
thanks Mtn laurel. I am interested in sharing in that thread. I read most of the links then followed other links and so on and to be honest I saw many people from many administrations that were linked to positions of power in our Government and Monsanto.
To be honest, I have voted in every presidential election since the early 70's and our electoral process is just becoming more discouraging to me the more money from companies and pacs then flow into them.
I wish someone could point me to a candidate that truly has the best interests of the american people in mind, not their own pocketbooks or their cronies pocketbooks because sadly I think that is where we are.
Is Obama respresenting my interests? Will Romney now that he looks like he will be the most likely Republican nominee? I know Rush certainly is not representing my best interests- I have listened to his show this week, and he has moved on from the prostitute/slut issues, but certainly has a lot of strong opinions I don't agree with, and my tea party congresswomen is certainly not looking out for me, I am sure of that.
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-12, 3:23pm
Paul at least won't get us involved in a war with Iran :\. It's a good protest vote, if he won might be a true lesser of evils (with Romneybama, I'm not convinced we even have that). I know that's not how it's likely to go. The problems can't be solved on a presidential level. If they can be solved through voting at all it's probably through the House, maybe the states. What will make me sit out the Romneybama candidate is NDAA (Obama signed, Romney came out in favor).
flowerseverywhere
3-7-12, 10:20pm
Paul at least won't get us involved in a war with Iran :\. It's a good protest vote, if he won might be a true lesser of evils (with Romneybama, I'm not convinced we even have that). I know that's not how it's likely to go. The problems can't be solved on a presidential level. If they can be solved through voting at all it's probably through the House, maybe the states. What will make me sit out the Romneybama candidate is NDAA (Obama signed, Romney came out in favor).
maybe I am reading this wrong but I was trying to figure out who the major campaign contributors are
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012
why are the US Navy, Army and Air Force listed as the top three contributors to Ron Paul. Interestingly Romney has listed Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan & Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and Citigroup.
ApatheticNoMore
3-8-12, 2:14pm
why are the US Navy, Army and Air Force listed as the top three contributors to Ron Paul.
I'm open to other explanations but I've always heard Paul has a lot of service member support. So I don't think this money is military industrial complex money but rather service members. Why would they support? The obvious guess is even they (or maybe especially they) are sick of all these unnecessary wars and Paul is the only anti-war candidate who even gets polls and votes in the double digits. But who knows.
I don't think there are many examples of liberals saying things as bad as this.
I agree, but even if there were, I would have a problem with it. Point being, I have a problem with it no matter from whom it comes.
Yea so I hear. I hear things like Norway is accepting Americans as POLITICAL REFUGEEES and yet I must get all excited about Obama because I have a uterus. I'm really not supposed to preceive the full reality of what is going on. Oh well I'm just a girl too much thinking can't be expected. I've thought of leaving, can't say I've done much.
Yes, I like how I'm continually told that I don't understand things. It's particularly common from my family, who support santorum, say that they are 'tea party' supporters and 'real conservatives' who are actually (apparently) neo-theocons who have no concept of the constitution. But hey, whatevs. I'm the one still paying off law school, and I got the goods, so. . . yeah.
I actually envy you being out of the country and all. At times I thought I should PM and ask you how it's done :). That depends on how serious I am :). Disgusted? Yes. Sometimes afraid? With NDAA and stuff? Yes. But I do have ties here (heck I defend the honor of California - but I actually like it better than I do the U.S. govt :)).
It's not all that tough really so long as you are under 55 in most cases. Some places are a lot tougher than others, of course -- it's harder than hell to get into Denmark -- even though we might have snuck in under some reverse immigration (repatriation of children of danes who moved away, yeah?). Ireland was doing that for a fair bit too.
So, there are three things that you need to move, usually:
1. some money;
2. a job (or the ability to start a business which requires more #1);
3. being the right age (or, being older but having even more of #1);
4. having a skill that's on the skill's shortage list;
5. getting into a relationship with a person of that nationality.
Now, each country is going to have it's own deal. Many will not have skills shortages, for example. Several more simply won't take you unless you have a job, and it's hard to get a job when you don't live where you're looking for a job and the law here is such that an employer should try to hire a kiwi first, then a resident second, and then someone already holding a visa, and then someone who isn't. And, they have to demonstrate that you are the best candidate, too. They sponsor your visa. But, sometimes NZ holds job fairs in the UK, so head over on a holiday with resumes in hand -- that's how one of our new friends got here.
The skills shortage list is interesting -- it gives you more points. If you have enough points, you get a residency visa right away. It takes 3 or 5 years (might ahve changed in the last two) to get full residency, but it means you can live and work here like a resident until you have the full residency. We were 5 points shy. Being that close puts you in a lottery. But if you don't get it that year, you have to reapply the next year (or figure out how to get 5 more points!).
Anyway, just check the immigration web sites of countries that you think would be cool. A lot of developing nations might work well. For example, a friend of mine decided to move to Chile, and she LOVES it. of course, she speaks spanish, and I can't wait to visit her there. The pictures are gorgeous, and she says that it's basically the way I describe living in NZ. safe, comfortable, with a bit of things being "developing nation" like but nothing so extreme that your'e dealing with half the country in famine or cartel-warfare.
And, it's pur-ty.
You have options. Lots of them. Another friend moved from here to Thailand -- she loves it. She lives like a queen on very little money and works because english speaking people are in high demand. It's pretty cool.
So, yeah. Options.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.